A lot of countries' actions in WW2 can be reduced to "resource control" warfare, for instance the Germans attacking British holdings in the Middle East before eventually attacking Russia over oil or Japan capturing many pacific islands for oil and rubber resources, but there's something that doesn't make sense to me.

While a lot of Germany's intermediate decisions were driven by resources, they still developed "endgames" for the war such as trying to capture Moscow to take Russia mostly out of the war, "Operation Sea Lion" against the British, and the V2 rocket program coupled with their nuclear program against the British. From there they would just try to lock down and fortify Europe until the US would decide it wasn't worth it anymore and sign an armistice.

Looking back at Japan's actions, what was their strategy to actually end the war? I know they were modernizing incredibly rapidly and needed resources, but what strategy did they have towards actually ending the war or taking other nations out of the fighting?

They took Manchuria and were stopped by the Russians, so they did need another source of oil, but they left a large open front with China and then attacked the United States. Yamamoto has been quoted as saying that taking Hawaii or San Francisco wouldn't have been enough to end the war with the US, and Japan would have to march all the way to DC to take the US out of the war. He's also popularly (and possibly erroneously) cited with that "rifle behind every blade of grass" quote.

To me, it seems like Japan had a case of ADD when it came to the war. They made a lot of progress and captured a lot of territory, but did they actually have a plan to actually end the war or at least consolidate it?