Putting on my Evil Overlord hat: You could conquer everyone who doesn’t, though. At which point they all become states and territories in the newly expanded US with all the resources to use as you need. Why would you then need to trade with the few nations left?
Because we have a trade based economy, and because those conquered territories will be horribly expensive to hold on to and not very productive. Classic imperialism has largely gone away because it’s no longer profitable; not because we are significantly more enlightened. Those extra territories will be a burden not a help.
And there would be more than a few nations left because very rapidly everyone would ally with each other against us; probably something as straightforward as kicking us out of NATO and expanding it to cover everyone we haven’t gotten to yet.
eg. You used to make your own clothes without trading with others. Why not again?
Hold against whom? You’ve effectively wiped out the locals and crushed their will to exist.
The rest of the world combined is just slightly more than the US spends on its military. And if you make a deal with say China to give them India or northern Russia (kind of like the deal Germany made with Russia in WW2 ;);)) then you’d have little effective opposition.
World wide Military expenditure
Give the military capabilities to anyone other than the people who run the US, say a Julius Caesar, Alexander, Khan, etc, they’d be running the world by now. As an evil empire, the US is pretty much a failure.
It doesn’t need to be an “Evil Empire[SUP]TM[/SUP]”, it just needs its good men to sit by and do nothing, or worse, concentrate on their own financial portfolios and selfish needs.
It needs to be an evil empire to take over the world, or at least those countries that are proving bothersome. My point is that if it had the will and desire to do it then it could do it. That it doesn’t says that the moral qualms of doing so over-ride its ability to do so. And that means that good men are not just sitting by and doing nothing. They are stopping such actions. Now whether they are as effective as most would want them to be is another matter.
When did the US kill millions of civilians in the Middle East? Was it all at once or over the course of time? Where exactly did this new holocaust take place? Which civilian targets were knowingly and intentionally bombed? When did the US steal oil supplies against the will of the native population?
You do know that there is a difference between having a few military bases in a country and an occupation, right? The Hague Convention of 1907 defines an occupation:
Saudi Arabia as a country has never been placed under US authority. Just the same as the US military in Japan, Germany, or Italy right now is not an occupation. Inaccurate and overblown hyperbole makes it difficult to take either you or Der Tris seriously.
To anyone other than those who run the US?
Anyway, the presence of other nuclear powers makes that not an option.
Didn’t stop the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan. Or installing dictators murdering millions, etc as ITR champion states.
No. It would stop the US running the entire world, as Uzi, the person to whom I was replying states!
And that would be a bad thing? Why?
What would be a bad thing? You’ve lost me.
That the US controlled the world. I mean rather than a bunch of dictators who currently control the areas the OP is complaining about.
I don’t want the US (or anyone else) to control my country. I can’t speak for anyone else.
I think the non-US Americans answering (except for Uzi) have answered the question - because it would be the US against The Rest of The World then. Canada didn’t support the US invading Iraq seven years ago; I doubt we’d support the US carpet-bombing Iraq. Having the Rest of the World blockading you and stopping trade with you (I think we’d put NAFTA aside in these conditions), you’d need your Middle East oil - you wouldn’t be getting it from anyone else. Then as some have mentioned, you start making deals with Russia or China, and you really do have a recipe for World War III.
Other fall-out - US diplomats recalled from every post in the world. US citizens not welcome anywhere in the world as tourists or business people. US planes and boats not allowed in any other country. Complete isolation for your country, since you have proven that you can’t play nice as a global citizen.
ETA: I should say, you’ve proven that quite a few times, but this would be too egregious to ignore.
I have no idea where you live, but if it is in a country run by a local despot, what would it matter where that despot resides? Well, unless you are one of the locals who benefit from such a person being in power, that is.
It’s the UK. Which is part of the entire world. At least I think it is! 
Ha, I’ve worked with Brits. Sometimes I wonder!
Then the rest of the world is even more adamantly against us, and those lands are even more useless.
Doesn’t matter, they have nukes.
You presume that they wouldn’t be part of the alliance against us. Or that they’d actually want a radioactive wasteland. Or that we’d be alive to give anyone anything after the Russians nuked us to glowy dust.
The US is cowardly, a bully; unwilling to attack anyone believed capable of serious resistance. And again conquest just isn’t profitable these days.
Because America has demonstrated (in Iraq most recently) that it is an even worse ruler than those despots; many of whom are just puppets of ours anyway. And because in your own scenario we’d start off by killing nearly the entire population; since when has that qualified as good government?
I’m unclear as to why those nations who have nukes would be willing to use them when they haven’t been attacked yet? Surely they know that they would be destroyed as well. Why would they do this to save any nation in the middle east, or world, other than themselves?
Because they would shortly all be part of the same military alliance, just as the West joined NATO against the USSR and the Allies against the Axis.