I love the idea, but this really doesn't dispute the central point. Iceland is an economy with a $24B GDP that is smaller than Vermont's, the lowest US state. The claim is that letting large US banks fail is a systemic risk that causes cascading failure. Using Iceland as an example doesn't dispute that point.

But the citizens of Iceland did in fact lose a ton of money. I think maybe it does dispute the point? (Arguing more from ignorance here.)

Here in the US we're told the banks were to big too fail, the banksters too powerful to jail.