Back in February, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu complained that the sanctions imposed on Iran by the international community “have not” had any effect. But it appears that the government may be shifting its tone. Today, Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, Ron Prosor, said sanctions on Iran are working.

Referring to the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication’s (SWIFT) recent decision to expel 30 Iranian financial institutions — including the Central Bank — from using the key banking industry communication network, Prosor said the sanctions are “important” and “have an effect,” Foreign Policy’s Colum Lynch reports:

[H]e also credited international sanctions, particularly a set of financial measures imposed by the United States and the European Union, with exacting a steep enough price that it may force Tehran to change its behavior. Prosor cited a recent decision by the Belgium-based Society of World Wide Interbank Financial Telecommunications, or Swift, blocking dozens of Iranian firms from doing business as the latest evidence the sanctions are having an impact.

“I think the international community at this stage has really moved forward and have made at least clear to Tehran that there is a certain price tag for continuing” its pursuit of nuclear weapons, he said. “The decision on SWIFT, the issue of the sanctions by the EU, are important and have an effect on Iran…I do see really a movement on the international stage, especially on the economic side…It’s much more effective than people think and it might change, hopefully it might change behavior patterns if we continue with it.”

The New York Times noted last month that the SWIFT decision “severs a crucial conduit for Iran to electronically repatriate billions of dollars’ worth of earnings from the sale of oil and other exports.”

“It is a very efficient measure,” said a European Union official. “It can seriously cripple the banking sector of Iran.”

On Friday, President Obama announced further economic measures directed at Iran, making the determination that global oil supplies were sufficient enough to allow countries to reduce their imports of Iranian oil thereby clearing the way for the Obama administration to impose harsh penalties on foreign banks that purchase Iranian oil.

“There is evidence that these sanctions are hurting,” Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said in a recent interview, “that it’s impacting on their economy, it’s impacting on their ability to govern themselves.”

Lynch also reported that Proser said that he believes Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. Top American officials and the IAEA agree that Iran is continuing to develop its nuclear capabilities and that some of their activity has a military dimension. However, U.S. and Israeli intelligence and the IAEA say Iran has, as Panetta said, “not made the decision to actually produce a nuclear weapon”

Our guest blogger is Will Scheffer, national security team intern at the Center for American Progress.

The Washington Post reported last week that GOP presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney “is preparing to broaden his challenge to President Obama’s management of foreign affairs.” One issue the former Massachusetts governor has been trying to hit Obama on is China. Romney continues to attack the administration for not doing enough and not spending enough. In a recent op-ed, Romney promised to confront what he called the threat of a “Chinese century” by spending more money:

But the dawn of a Chinese century — and the end of an American one — is not inevitable. America possesses inherent strengths that grant us a competitive advantage over China and the rest of the world. We must, however, restore those strengths.

That means shoring up our fiscal and economic standing, rebuilding our military, and renewing faith in our values. We must apply these strengths in our policy toward China to make its path to regional hegemony far more costly than the alternative path of becoming a responsible partner in the international system.

But the reality is that the Obama administration should be commended for figuring out how to confront China’s military build-up while simultaneously reducing defense spending. As CAP’s Nina Hachigian and the National Security Network’s Jacob Stokes point out in their recent report, the Obama administration’s approach to China recognizes the challenges posed by China’s rise, but doe not exaggerate the possible threat for political gain. Though China’s defense budget has grown to $160 billion, this number is still about four times smaller than the U.S. defense budget.

President Obama and top military officials, including Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey, are in agreement that getting our own fiscal house in order is critical to strengthening American national security.

Viewing China policy through this lens prevents a strategically and fiscally irresponsible overreaction to a perceived Chinese threat, while simultaneously keeping a watchful eye on their continuing efforts to develop militarily.

China’s military development is indeed a cause for concern, but it is still far from being a serious military challenger to the United States, even in the Pacific. Take, for instance, the newest addition to the Chinese Naval fleet, which is not really “new” at all; the aircraft carrier Shi Lang (formerly Varyag), a 25 year old refurbished Ukrainian dinosaur that has been called a “piece of junk” by military analysts. Compare that to the U.S. Navy’s 11 technologically unmatched carrier strike groups and U.S. superiority becomes obvious. Below the ocean’s surface, the Chinese navy is similarly deficient, with a recent U.S. Navy assessment concluding that modern Chinese-made submarines are more easily detected than Soviet subs during the Cold War.

Given that the U.S. maintains a force of roughly 50 ships in the western Pacific at any given time, American forces are not in imminent danger of being outmatched. Instead the U.S. should devote more time and energy to improving diplomatic relations, including military-to-military, with the goal of better managing any future conflict. By linking China with the threat posed by the Soviet Union, conservatives like Mitt Romney are moving the U.S. to a future military standoff. Progressives are working to ensure that this type of warmongering and budget busting foreign policy rhetoric doesn’t become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

GOP presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney has been trying (unsuccessfully) to capitalize on President Obama’s open-mic comment in which he told Russian President Dimitry Medvedev that he’d be more “flexible” on missile defense issues after the election. Romney charged that the incident questions Obama’s “commitment to Israel.”

Yesterday on CBS’s Face the Nation, Vice President Biden shot back at Romney, calling him “uninformed“:

BIDEN: But what I think is most revealing about it is the Governor’s response. The Governor talking about this hurts Israel. He either hasn’t been informed yet or doesn’t know that this missile defense system we put in, and I was responsible as you remember for going to Europe and selling the new system which better protects them, also better protects Israel and in terms of the early warning capability. I mean, he just seems to be uninformed, or stuck in a Cold War mentality. So, I think what the– the exchange did, it exposes how little the Governor knows about foreign policy.

Watch the clip:

Indeed, Romney is uninformed. Since President Obama took office in 2009, the United States security commitment to Israel increased significantly and is unprecedented. Top Israeli officials regularly make this point. In fact, similar baseless GOP claims on Obama and Israel led the Associated Press to get involved. An AP “fact check” notes that Republican attacks on Obama that he’s not sufficiently pro-Israel “have strayed well beyond reality.”

Just last week, the Pentagon asked Congress for more money for Israel’s Iron Dome system which is designed to intercept short-range rockets and mortars. In recent weeks, the system was credited for intercepting more than 80 percent of the nearly 300 rockets fired by Palestinian militants from Gaza into southern Israel. “Supporting the security of the state of Israel is a top priority of President Obama and Secretary Panetta,” DOD spokesman George Little said in a statement.

Later on Face the Nation yesterday, Newt Gingrich also had trouble sticking to reality on Obama and Israel. Gingrich claimed that in a previous “hot-mic” incident with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Obama made a “derogatory reference to Israel.” “It was Sarkozy complaining about Prime Mister Netanyahu of Israel, and Obama actually sort of trumping him and saying it’s even worse I have to deal with him every day.” In fact, as Media Matters pointed out, Obama was actually advocating for Israel’s position at the time, requesting that Sarkozy ask the Palestinians to slow their push for U.N. membership.