Isn't the premise sort of undermined by the fact (posited in the text) that overseas US denominated debt is actually better offset by US dollar denominated holdings than ever before?
And I don't entirely understand the importance of say a Turkey or Argentina default to this scenario. If large amounts if USD debts can't be serviced that alleviates the so-called "squeeze" because the haircuts represent money that doesn't need to be "found".
There was a lot of words in there and it seems like a pretty big pile of assumptions stacked on top of assumptions and it doesn't make a straightforward argument in favour of the premise that we should expect the US dollar to devalue relative to other currencies in the medium term.
(Also the link that explains trade deficits is a pretty bad explanation of trade deficits and how they do and don't matter.)