Do you mean purposely as in, Roosevelt willfully did everything he could to prompt a Japanese attack so he could enter the war?
Or do you mean purposely as in, Roosevelt made decisions, which he believed to be in US interests, that he knew could and would cause war to break out?
If we're talking about the former, the answer is more ambivalent. Certainly the US had cracked the Japanese diplomatic code, and were well aware of what the Japanese government's interests and demands were and would be. At the same time, Roosevelt had several opportunities to declare war on Japan well before 1941-for instance, the sinking of the USS Panay in Shanghai, 1937. Roosevelt could have argued that it was an intentional attack and justified US intervention in China, but he didn't.
If we're talking about the scrap steel and oil embargoes, those were the materials that drove Japan's war industries. Certainly they were a factor in causing Japan to attack the US, but the US intent was to starve Japan's war machine in China and cause them to come to the peace table.
One could describe it really as a game of chicken between the US and Japan. The only thing was, the US knew how big and fast Japan's car was, they had a bigger car, they had a faster car, they had extra air bags, and two of their good friends were a mechanic and an emergency care doctor that lived right by the bridge in question. Needless to say, the US felt pretty confident that even if neither side pulled away, the US would come out okay. And they did.
This is a bit of a loaded question that could be interpreted in a couple of noticeably different ways. If you are asking did US foreign policy prior to 1941 portend future military engagement against the Axis powers then the answer is probably yes. If you are asking did Roosevelt personally favor intervention as opposed to Wilsonian isolationism then the answer is certainly yes. But if you are asking did Roosevelt have advanced knowledge of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor or did he secretly wish for it to happen in order to secure popular support for intervention then the answer is no. Similarly if you are asking whether or not Roosevelt deceitfully approved of an oil embargo on Japan in order to effectively create a de facto declaration of war the answer is also no.
The purpose of the oil and scrap metal embargoes - and the restrictive trade policies toward Japan in general - was not to force Japan's hand into making a bold, reckless decision that would justify American intervention in the war effort. Rather, it was intended to foster diplomatic negotiations toward a peaceful resolution of Japan's aggressive expansionist policies in South East Asia. Now, whether the United States had realistic expectations for these negotiations and whether they entered into them entirely in good faith is a bit more debatable. The Americans demanded Japan's unconditional withdrawal from China and an agreement to a non-aggression treaty with Allied forces in the Pacific. Japan, obviously, did not find those terms particularly agreeable.
If you want to argue that the United States placed Japan into a fairly untenable position where military engagement was the only feasible outcome that's at least somewhat defensible but it still denies a great deal of agency to actors on both sides of the conflict. War was by no means inevitable and it was ultimately the decision of Japan to forgo the possibility of future negotiations that may have presented more favorable terms and conditions. However, if you want to argue that the United States deliberately set out to force Japan into initiating hostilities then that clearly is not a credible argument. If anything, the United States took great measures to avoid conflict by pursuing alternative measures such as economic sanctions and diplomatic overtures.