What you asked is impossible at this point. There aren't many commonalities between these two cases, to begin with, and the political landscape is entirely different. These punitive coalitions are demanding endeavors, one requires tremendous investments of political capital. Back in 1991, it was relatively easier to muster the support necessary to propagate the idea of military intervention was necessary, as Iraq was in clear violation of the UN Charter. The coalition of 2003 however, was an entirely different story, one that is hardly legitimate. The justification was vague and the UNSC unconvinced, both France and Russia in clear opposition to the decision. By taking unilateral action on questionable legal grounds, America ended up with a deteriorating image.
Being the sole global power doesn't always absolve one from the international norms. Despite its' position fortified by the fall of the Soviet Union, the US had to invest politically to sell these coalitions to other nations. Deploying carrier strike groups might intimidate one or two nations but convincing them is another matter.
Can American leadership convince the neighbors of China to take action to keep Taiwan independent? I'd say the chances are next to none.
Firstly, China is China and always has been while Iraq is a post-colonial nation, never weighted much importance or posed much of a threat to the West. Secondly, unlike Taiwan, Kuwait is an independent nation and a member of the UN since 1963. The Nations entertaining closer relations (that's about the whole world) with Beijing were expected to commit to One-China Policy. Damaging ties in this manner with China would have consequences in multiple dimensions. Does Taiwan worth taking that risk? The US treaty allies in that particular region; Japan and S. Korea have bilateral trades with China, valued at $330 bln and $285 bln respectively.
