Likely not. Had they seized Antwerp, the Allies would have halted all offensive ground operations in the west and consolidated into a defensive footing. But would have done nothing to stop the Soviets on the eastern front. And at long last Allied carpet bombing was beginning to impact the German industrial base and transportation system.

Politically, the US would not have sued for a separate peace.

/u/Starlifter2 is correct in his succinct response but I wish to add on to his their point.

The entire premise of the plan was deeply flawed, even if we ignore all the logistical impossibilities heaped upon the attacking forces (such as the presumption of capturing fuel in which the offensive was to subsist on). In short: The plan was a pipe-dream.

The entire idea was that the American or British forces would sue for a separate peace had a gap been struck between their armies. Let's ignore the obvious implication of how such an exposed salient would be a ripe target for a counteroffensive and discuss as if this is not is an issue: What would make Hitler rationally believe that the desired outcome would occur? The Allies to that point had been fighting an absolutely splendid 3 and a half years of coalition warfare, and had been working well together (in a relative sense of the phrase). Their commitment to total victory at that point was beyond doubt. The Wacht-am-Rhein offensive was an absolute mess in objective from the operational, strategic and political perspective; and was predicated on an unreasonably optimistic, and I suggest even arrogant, assumption about the American's 'stomach' for battle.