If they want to kill us, I'm amazed they don't cut off the resource we prize so highly. It would ruin our economy faster than a bomb on wall street. Such would make them happy. In an age when any government can print money, I doubt they need ours. They can sell enough oil to russia for rubles and china for some of the US dollars we trade for cheap junk. If they want to kill us, why don't they do the next best thing and hurt us by cutting off the resource that they control, and that we do not want to do without? If they benefit by our business, what would be the sense in killing us and losing the business? If they don't benefit from our business, then what is stopping them from hurting us any way they can, the most obvious, cutting off the oil entirely?
1) It would be an act of war & would be treated as such.
2) We'd be hurt, but we'd speed up work on alternatives. The US has large coal reserves & we don't touch them, cuz using oil is cheaper & cleaner.
3) Other resources in the world (think Canadian tar sands) would also be pushed into the world market.
4) Their population would starve, as most of their economies are oil based. Uprisings are more common when a population is starving & resources are needed to quell that sort of thing.
5) Bad mouthing the House of Saud is a popular pastime, but they increase production in a "West" friendly manner.
Iranian war games demonstrated Iranian consideration of the strategy you just raised. They will do it on their own schedule & when they do, game on! A decapitation strike will be among our first responses. Could be they're waiting for Chinese and/or Russian commitments. Meanwhile, using non-state actors is working to make the US as isolated as possible.
BTW, much of the early territorial wrangling in WWII involved securing energy resources. At the end of that war, Japan had been reduced to using most of its pine trees to keep its birds in the air. Kamikazes didn't have enough fuel to make it back "home" anyway. Germany had also resorted to using alternative fuels.