WW2 was the death of the battleship, we all know that

The IJN was actually quite strong, when the battleships and carriers and the whole fleet are taken into consideration. It's just that they could not match the massive untapped reserve of the US manpower, industry and civilian economy.

But that was a characteristic of the entire Japanese High Command planning in WW2. From strategic planning down to the banzai charge at platoon level, their mindset was to gamble everything on one bold attack, no reserves. Because frankly that was the only way they could match the numbers of their opponents.

They had the wrong strategy period

Well. If they did destroy the carriers it would have been a longer war.

But it would still have been a war. And a war that they could not win. So even if PH had been successful they would eventually have lost. That's why their strategy is bad.

Not exactly true

The US is quite clear on who its allies are today, and has more stringent controls on weapon sales than say the French. This is longstanding policy since the Cold War and arguably WW2 even.

If one is talking about consumer goods, then it's different from military goods. Neutrality in international trade, according to the free market, is the status quo position that all nations are basically expected to take. Govts really only take a position when declaring embargoes and other trade controls.

Currently if I'm not mistaken we trade with basically everyone other than North Korea, Iran, and Israel. Does that make us "supplying stuff to both sides of the war to profit" as well?

You said both current and pre-Pearl Harbour
Pre-Pearl Harbour, before 1940 the US did not supply arms to either Japan or Germany. In fact, even commercial trade with these nations steadily went down due to anti-war, pro-Allied sentiments in the US.