The article address that possibility albeit indirectly. I make this connection: The Muslim Brotherhood supports al Qaeda and to a lesser extent the other Syrian rebels, the current beneficiaries of the arms that move from Libya to Turkey to Syria.
Why on earth would the Muslim Brotherhood want to interfere with that flow?
The answer is they wouldn't. The article speculates that it is the Iranians who would want to put the crunch on such an operation. Not a bad theory.
I speculated in an earlier thread that the Libya to Turkey to Syria operation might somehow be bypassing the al-Qaeda rebels. Although that seems unlikely it is a possible motive that would give some credence to your Muslim Brotherhood theory. Particularly if al-Qaeda has independent means to secure Libyan weapons and view the CIA operation as a competitor.
Morsi needed a high-profile American hostage that he knew 0bama would trade the Blind Sheik for because 0bama would NEVER allow an Ambassador being held hostage looming over his head right before the election.. No way, no how. Hillary might have opened the door for Morsi by reducing/refusing security for Stevens.. Perhaps she didn’t want 0bama to get re-elected, either. She’s running in 2016 and he’d be a hard act for the Democrats to want to follow (if there’s a country left by then).
Benghazi was an Iranian/Russian hit