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