The question would be how much treasure the USA would be prepared to spend on this. Also, there is the matter of garrisoning captured Canada and CSA and these are higher priority for the USA.
Still, if they did then they need forward naval bases. The British and the French only need a fraction of the Atlantic to be be able to run ships down the African coast. Assuming that it is prepared to stay in the war Brazil can offer ports, but the Entente would still be able to gain local naval superiority because of a home water advantage.
Ireland has possibilites, but is too challenging. Therefore if I was the USA I would knock off Iceland and the Azores. It is going to take time to build serious facilities there, but from the start they provide anchorages. Taking them from neutrals is going to be easier than the Entente counter invading because there will be large USA garrisons.
Yes, the Canaries are another tempting target. However Spain is larger and thus could add more to the Entente if it has had no civil war.
I don't recall what happened to Ireland in the canon Great War, but it would shock me if the British didn't overrun it in 1941. So if the US really wants to prosecute war with Britain, invading Ireland will be a necessity, perhaps the end-game: liberate their ally and park superbomb-capable planes in Dublin.
US naval air power and submarines will be the real menace--if Admiral Nimitz exists ITTL, he'll be leading submarine wolfpacks against French and British convoys from Murmansk to Casablanca. But yes, the Azores and Iceland will be necessary to support that kind of campaign. And the major disruption to British and French supplies might not happen until after Germany is forced into submission.
The Superbomb and Ireland, however, are the political footballs that, I think, will keep the US in the war. The vast Irish-American population will riot if the US throws Ireland to the dogs (and 1944 is an election year where the Democrats will have pointed questions about how the Socialists were stupid enough to allow the Kentucky plebiscite in the first place)--at the very least, the US will want Britain to back out of Ireland in exchange for recognizing Britain's gains at Germany's expense.
Germany's advantage, relative to the Entente, is that Mitteleuropa needs to be occupied to cut Germany off from resources. Ukrainian and Polish produce, Czechoslovak and German manufacturing, Ottoman oil, etc. If the Entente can overrun Ukraine and push into Poland, and also seize Azerbaijan and cut the Berlin-Baghdad railroad (Romania, IIRC, was an Entente player too), then Germany can be starved of oil and food--and have to sue for peace. The question becomes, as you say, whether the US has the will to fight the Royal Navy hard enough to break the blockade and present an alternate source of food and fuel.
I am inclined to say this will will
exist, for the aforementioned political reason and also because the resources necessary to wage a naval war are not the same as those required to wage a land war. The US's shipyards in New York and New England (not so much Philadelphia) are basically intact, and while the US isn't quite the naval power it was IOTL, ITTL it'll have a lot of ships it can devote to fighting the RN (which is smaller than OTL because Britain lost the Great War), and Japan and the US are basically ignoring each other after the Sandwich Islands are retaken.