Living next door to the US, I'm able to easily recognise American satire for what it is, and the contextual aspect has been well explained above. But Skarpi and Iceland have some right to be disturbed, because the author obviously does not know very much about Iceland, has not bothered to research a little and therefore discover that Iceland has had its problems with the US government, and uses Iceland as a conveniently absurd country for Americans to bomb (ironic, considering the air base problem Skarpi cites). This can be seen as dismissive of Iceland as a real place where real people live. More than the satiric suggestion about bombing, the article insults because it is so typically ignorant about the world outside the US.

The comparison with Betjeman fails because Betjeman was writing satire about a place he knew well, not a place he knew virtually nothing about.