> No, you're the one conflating the two. The end result is different. For imperialism, the result is a country under the political control of a different country, or giving up its resources to another country. The end result with U.S. policy is that maybe you end up with a different (often more democratic) regime. The means is similar: foreign military excursions and direct interventions into other countries.
The end result with U.S. policy is that you end up with a different regime that's more likely to trade with and have friendly relations with the U.S. There's definitely an economic reason for U.S. intervention
Historically, the goal has not been to ensure that you have a regime that's more likely to trade with the U.S., but to ensure that your regime doesn't interfere with neighbors who are trading with the U.S.
The end result with U.S. policy is that you end up with a different regime that's more likely to trade with and have friendly relations with the U.S. There's definitely an economic reason for U.S. intervention