I don't understand why US having military presence around the globe tilts the free markets in their favour. Realistically, no military outside of perhaps Russian could stand up against the US but I don't think US are outright forcing trade agreements at a gun point, or am I wrong?

The United States has a variety of techniques for making sure its business interests get what they want. Aircraft carriers are one (see Iraq, and possibly Iran if things go south), CIA-sponsored coups another (Guatemala, El Salvador), economic sanctions a third (Iran again, Russia, much of Latin America). Negotiation at gun point often takes the form of crippling sanctions until and unless a US-friendly regime is in power - there's no actual guns, but there's also no free elections.

Noam Chomsky is a great resource if you want to go deeper on this topic.

Why would a renowned linguist be a credible source of geopolitics? Especially when his wikipedia article starts off the section on political views by calling him a "dissident"?

> Chomsky is a prominent political dissident. His political views have changed little since his childhood, when he was influenced by the emphasis on political activism that was ingrained in Jewish working-class tradition.

If you want confirmation bias or arguments to feed your matching viewpoint, sure, but neutral, reasoned analysis? Not so much.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky#Political_views

Can I make a small counterpoint? I would say Noam Chomsky has very little credibility as a social scientist. (As a linguist is another matter.) He's tied himself in knots over Venezuela. Before that he disgraced himself by denying genocide in Cambodia (http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky/wma.html). His books are well-nigh unreadable rants, which substitute conspiratorial thinking for serious analysis.

If you want to read a serious progressive economist, go for Dani Rodrik. Or hell, read Marx. Marx was a real social scientist. Chomsky, no.

This sounds like something a lot of people might believe.

It's difficult to impose sanctions without having control of waterways. The US can enforce sanctions against Iran and Russia, but the reverse is not true. This puts the former is a position of advantage. True, aircraft carrier diplomacy is a bit more subtle than the the "sign this treaty or we'll blow up your harbor" gunboat diplomacy of old. But it's still the application of force to put the nation at a diplomatic and economic advantage.

Sometimes you can just ask someone what their motivations are and they simply tell you:

Summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy of the USA https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2018-Nation... (11 pages, easy read)

First page: "Failure to meet our defense objectives will result in decreasing U.S. global influence, eroding cohesion among allies and partners, and reduced access to markets that will contribute to a decline in our prosperity and standard of living"

I'll leave it to the reader to decide if this supports the above argument, it's just USA propaganda but I found it certainly interesting to read with a cynical eye.

What rational state wouldn’t want to avoid the above scenarios?

Look up petro dollar and how anyone who tried to build an alternative was overthrown or invaded.

The US will use all its might if someone threatens the stability and dominance of the dollar.

The Russian military is a shadow of what the Soviets brought to the table. Their main aircraft carrier has a habit of catching on fire. However their ability to spew propaganda, and to bribe businessmen with penchants for East European women, is unsurpassed.

The real counter to the US military is China, both in a direct military sense, as well as economically/softpower-y.

Look up what ended Japan self-imposed isolation.