b) We don't need political capital to do it.
c) Lacking political capital is not why we don't do it. We don't do it because US leadership and the US people do not think it's a good idea.
The US's unilateral declarations of war have caused a huge amount of tension, globally. To do what you propose would be a log breaking the back of many a diplomatic camel.
Contrary to your opinion, the US is not superman, it's just another country that is currently on top of things. Take a look at what has happened to empires who over-stretched historically. Hint, it's not pretty and they're not around anymore.
And besides, the interests of the US align on this with literally every other civilizized country on the face of the Earth.
> the US is not superman, it's just another country that is currently on top of things.
Compared to Iran or Pakistan or Yemen, the US is Superman.
The US is not an empire. It is a republic. This would not be a war to expand US territory.
How is this not an equivocation with WW2? I apologize if I misinterpreted what you wrote, but it seems pretty obvious.
By "political capital" I was referring to a quote by George Bush, and the Bush doctrine in general. Mainly, that any goodwill we might have had to build a robust global coalition for anything has more or less been squandered by the debacle that was the adventure in Iraq, and the premise of the "axis of evil", and "you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists."
A country that acts morally, in its own self-defense, does not need political capital. If nobody at all sides with the US, fine. But nobody is going to side against the US that matters in a just, morally correct war to stop state sponsors of terrorism.