How is assuming a meteorite anymore valid than assuming nuclear weapons? We know both things exist and we know that both things cause iridium contamination. Nuclear weapons also cause uranium soil contamination, which is found all across these blast sites.
Like I've explained before, you're saying I'm speculating but you are also speculating as well by assuming these blasts were caused by meteorites. You cannot personally verify that they were caused by meteorites, and the same evidence you claim proves it was meteorites also proves it as nukes.
Additionally, if these blasts were indeed caused by meteorites, then why is it that we are no longer being bombarded by huge meteorites all the time like in the past? Literally, some of these impact craters happened very soon after the other... how is this possible? Did we just magically become immune to meteors all the sudden? I don't think so.
Also, "an incandescent column of smoke and fire, as brilliant as ten thousand suns rose in all its splendour"is a pretty close representation of a nuclear blast. I don't think you can get much clearly than that besides straight up saying "it was a nuclear blast". This is describing a mushroom cloud... and don't say "volcanoes", because they were not in the area being described in the ancient texts. You're reaching if you think that this passage is describing anything other than a nuclear blast.