Archaeologists reconstructed the burning of Jerusalem in 586 BCE

The "no historical account" applies only to the second siege of Jerusalem. The first siege and other events surrounding the second siege are recorded elsewhere.

I assume because this is the best account found by archeologists of the first temple destruction? It seems there were no previous historical account so this is a breakthrough. There is a previous article with other findings [1] [2]. Also related to technology it is interesting: "Israeli Archaeologists Enlist Cosmic Rays to Unveil Underground Secrets of Jerusalem" [3]

[1] https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/2023-08-21/ty-article-ma...

[2] https://archive.is/kZ9QL (2017)

[3] https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/2023-07-02/ty-article/is...

Most of what they described comes directly from the Bible.

2 Chronicles 36 outlines this stuff almost directly.

I am a little confused what you mean by "detailed geopolitical dynamics" - the paragraph beginning "Zedekiah also chafed under Babylonian rule and revolted in turn" is literally what the Bible story describes! See [1]. Are you referring to something specific?

I agree the presentation of the article was a bit sloppy, but there's evidence from Babylonian records[2] that

1) Judah was a client state of Babylon during Nebuchadnezzar II's reign

2) Jerusalem was sieged in 597BC

3) Afterwards Babylon installed a client king

The Babylonian records are weak but it is consistent with the Hebrew Bible[3] and agrees with the archeological evidence. Sadly we don't have Babylonian records of any second siege of Jerusalem. So it is reasonable to treat the Hebrew Bible story of the second siege as being a plausible treatment of the history, partially validated by the recent archeological evidence.

[1] https://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt09b24.htm#1 and https://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt09b25.htm#1 for instance

[2] E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebuchadnezzar_Chronicle

[3] https://www.biblica.com/bible/?osis=niv:2%20Kings%2024:10%E2...