US global strategy is about containing, encircling and isolating its potential rivals by military and economic means.

Russia has huge oil and gas reserves and remains the main military rival with a formidable arsenal of nuclear weapons.

China is easily the biggest economic threat and, by some measures, its economy is already bigger than that of the US. Its military posture is overwhelmingly defensive and it lacks the ability to project military power outside its own area.

The other US target is Iran. It needs the participation of the Shia militias to win the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq but is concerned that this will increase Iranian influence in the region.

Obama’s opening to Iran is seeking to defuse the standoff over Iran’s nuclear programme but faces fierce opposition from Republicans in both houses of Congress, from Israel and reactionary Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia.

The White House is pursuing economic and military means to contain these “threats” to its global hegemony. It is currently negotiating new free trade agreements across the Atlantic and Pacific oceans to put itself at the centre of an enormous free trade area that will exclude China and Russia.

Control over such a huge market could allow the US to “set market standards” for the rest of the world and make illegal forms of state or quasi-state ownership, subsidy and strategic direction that have been a key element in the growth of China and other developing nations.

In military terms, there is the “pivot” to Asia — a network of new and strengthened US bases in the Asia-Pacific area and the shift of 60 per cent of US naval and air power to the Far East. This includes the adoption of a menacing new strategic doctrine called AirSea Battle with plans to intercept vital Chinese energy trade at “choke points” such as the Straits of Malacca and the Taiwan Strait.

But the era of an unchallenged single superpower is gone. A series of reverses in major wars across the Middle East have exposed the limits of US power.

In Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya US-led military intervention has been nothing short of disastrous, creating power vacuums into which the Islamic State has moved.

In Syria, Nato members such as the US, Britain and Turkey — supported by Saudi Arabia and Qatar — provided training, weapons and money for anti-Assad forces, most of whom later joined Islamic State or the al-Qaida affiliated Al-Nusra Front. And an attempt to launch a direct US-led assault against the Assad regime was only defeated by widespread public opposition on both sides of the Atlantic and a vote in the British Parliament.

Perhaps more important is the long-term economic decline of Europe and the United States. Both were paralysed for many years by a deep and damaging recession and remain trapped in a cycle of debt and low growth. Their economies are being rapidly overhauled by China and other developing countries.

This is illustrated by the rise of Brics — the alliance between Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa is emerging as an alternative to the G7 Western powers and is challenging the Washington-dominated Bretton Woods system and the role of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency.

Brics countries have been largely excluded from the decision-making process in the IMF and World Bank. Their response was the New Development Bank set up in 2014 with an initial capitalisation of $100bn mainly to finance infrastructure projects in the developing world. In 2015 China launched a new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) which quickly attracted around 50 supporting countries including Britain despite the opposition of the Obama administration.

Another alternative to Nato in the eastern part of Eurasia is the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation (SCO) — a regional political, economic and military grouping which brings together China, Russia and four nations of Central Asia (excluding Turkmenistan). It will very soon admit four new members — India, Pakistan, Iran and Mongolia.

Its objectives of economic co-operation, development, peace and cultural understanding stand in direct contrast with the militarism of Nato. It opposes missile defence and seeks security with all states in the region. SCO members will soon account for almost half of the world’s population, 20 per cent of the world’s oil and around 50 per cent of its natural gas reserves. It is clearly emerging as a major counterbalance to the role of Nato in Eurasia — and unlike Nato it is focused on peace, development and inclusion.

In conclusion, the US is driving the reckless expansion of Nato — an alliance which is committed to a first strike nuclear doctrine involving Britain’s Trident system. It remains a mutual defence pact, which could oblige it to act in support of any member state which feels threatened, including by cyber attack. And because it is dominated by a single global superpower, there is a growing risk that it could be drawn into new military adventures if US governmental power fell into the hands of right-wing radicals. 

All this poses a serious threat to peace in almost every part of the world. That’s why the peace movement has a duty to respond.

You can read part 1 of Alan Mackinnon's Nato series here Nato is the menace not Russia

And part 2 here Nato is used by the US to exert power on Europe

• Nato is the Biggest Threat to Peace, a pamphlet by Alan Mackinnon is £2 (incl P&P) from Scottish CND, 77 Southpark Ave, Glasgow G12 8LE