Arab Spring protests so far have toppled governments in Tunisia and Egypt, led to a government-toppling civil war in Libya, and what looks to become a protracted civil war in Syria where the dictatorial regime remains, by most accounts, firmly entrenched, for now at least.

Now the Arab Spring protests, more than a year and a half after their inception, are hitting another North African country: Sudan. Student demonstrations against Omar Al-Bashir’s government have been bubbling up over the past couple weeks. Activists called for protests on Friday, which so far appear to have drawn hundreds to various towns across the country, according to a map of reported demonstrations posted by The Atlantic.

The protests — referred to in Sudan as “elbow licking,” after a colloquial phrase for doing the impossible adopted by the government — were set off by student objections to austerity measures imposed by the government. As the protests have grown over two weeks, reliable details have been more difficult to come by because of a government crackdown against journalists and bloggers.

Authorities ignored U.N. warnings against “heavy-handed suppression” and used tear gas to break up demonstrations near the capitol Khartoum and in eastern Sudan. The protesters chanted, “freedom, peace, justice and revolution is the choice of the people,” according to the BBC.

The Supreme Court’s decision yesterday to uphold the Affordable Care Act (ACA) marked a defining moment in the decades long battle to bring affordable healthcare to the U.S. But while healthcare continues to be a divisive issue domestically, the U.S. has funded and advocated for some of the best universal health systems around the world.

The U.S. is ranked 37th in the World Health Organization’s rankings of health systems. But the impact of U.S. health policy extends beyond U.S. borders. Laurie Garrett, a Senior Fellow for Global Health at the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote that the U.S. is now in line domestically with policies it has been promoting internationally:

Dating back to the Marshall Plan in post-WWII Europe, Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s 1945-49 occupation of Japan, and then the Korean War, it has been a matter of U.S. foreign policy to invest in the creation of universal health systems. More recently, the Marshall Plan was cited by AFRICOM in support of a Department of Defense engagement in health systems construction across Africa. This year (FY2012), South Africa was the number one recipient of health aid from the United States, totaling nearly $470 million, much of which is supporting the country’s fourteen-year program to build universal health coverage.

Indeed, Japan and Marshall Plan countries in Europe make up the majority, thirteen out of twenty, of the top national health systems in the World Health Organization’s (WHO) 2000 report [PDF]. Those countries are highlighted in the following chart:

And a 2010 Commonwealth Fund comparison of population health [PDF] in seven countries — Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the UK — found the U.S. underperforming “relative to other countries on most dimensions of performance.” Half of those countries outperforming the U.S. — Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK — were recipients of Marshall Plan assistance.

The ACA will provide access to health insurance for 30 million uninsured Americans and prevent insurers from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions. “[P]erhaps it will now be possible for an HIV-infected individual in Mississippi or Alabama to have access, at taxpayers’ expense, to the same level of care as the U.S. government supports for comparable individuals in Johannesburg,” writes Garrett.

Yesterday, new U.S. sanctions kicked-in barring global financial institutions from doing oil business through Iran’s central bank. On Sunday, a total European Union embargo on Iranian oil comes into effect. The world has, more or less, lined up behind these measures.

Now, economists are saying that these latest rounds of international sanctions could gut Iran’s oil-revenue-based economy. Jamie Webster, a senior manager of the Markets and Country Strategies Group at PFC Energy, told RFE/RL’s Golnaz Esfandiari:

A lot of these countries have already started to back out and essentially completed the backing out of that crude. So that’s around 600,000 barrels a day. Previously, before all of this latest rash of sanctions, Iran was exporting around 2.2 million barrels a day, so that is affecting them…

Another energy economist, Robin Mills, told Esfandiari that European firms’ refusal to insure Iranian oil tankers will also hurt Iranian oil sales to Eastern countries such as Japan and China, perhaps costing Iran another 400,000 barrels a day of exports. With prices of crude oil falling, that could mean Iran’s oil revenues fall by half, Mills said:

[O]il prices, which were very high in March, have fallen back quite significantly, so that’s a kind of a double impact.

So it could be that Iran’s oil revenues which were perhaps something like $100 billion to $110 billion during the last Iranian year, in this year they could be down to $45 billion to $50 billion, so the oil revenues could be cut in half overall with the combination of lower exports and lower prices.

Iran hawks in the U.S. calling for confrontation won’t even acknowledge that exports are down. Forget that the U.N.’s energy agency says Iran’s exports are down 40 percent, the stance that sanctions have no teeth willfully ignores even pronouncements by an Iranian official that exports are down between 20 and 30 percent. (The Iranians rarely acknowledge any economic pain at all, let alone from sanctions.)

The dual-track of pressure and diplomacy pursued by the Obama administration is based on the notion that a potential Iranian nuclear weapon is widely considered a threat to both the security of the U.S. and its allies in the region, as well as the nuclear non-proliferation regime. U.S., U.N. and Israeli intelligence estimates give the West time to pursue an approach other than war. Questions about the efficacy and potential consequences of a strike have led U.S. officials to declare that diplomacy is the “best and most permanent way” to resolve the crisis.

United Technologies settled a lawsuit with the U.S. government yesterday, acknowledging making false statements about its illegal export to China of U.S. software. That technology was used in China’s advanced military attack helicopter, the Z-10. “We accept responsibility for these past violations and we deeply regret they occurred,” United Technologies CEO Louis Chenevert said in a statement.

While United Technologies may be committed to avoiding such violations in the future, the FBI says foreign efforts to illegally acquire embargoed U.S. technology isn’t new but is quickly becoming one of the biggest national security problems facing the U.S. C. Frank Figliuzzi, head of the FBI’s counterintelligence division, testified before the intelligence subcommittee of the House homeland security committee on Thursday:

What we’re seeing is that foreign nations and their intelligence services are understanding more than ever before that it’s cheaper to steal our technology than to use their budget resources in this time of economic crisis to develop it themselves.

“The theft of U.S. proprietary technology, including controlled dual-use technology and military-grade equipment, from unwitting U.S. companies is one of the most dangerous threats to national security,” said John P. Woods, assistant director of national security investigations at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Responding to the United Technologies settlement, Andrew Shapiro, assistant secretary of state for political affairs, commented, “[the settlement] sends a clear message: willful violators U.S. arms exports control laws will be pursued and punished.”

The Z-10 is now in production and in use by the People’s Liberation Army of China.

The new U.S. sanctions against Iran that kick in today — along with an E.U. oil embargo set to take effect Sunday — are expected to put significant pressure on an already faltering Iranian economy. The new U.S. sanctions, signed into law by President Obama, will penalize any foreign financial institution that works a deal through Iran’s Central Bank that deals with Iran’s petroleum sector, whether purchasing Iranian oil exports or selling petroleum industry-related products to Iran.

As the sanctions came into effect, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a statement that she was granting exemptions to China and Singapore — bringing the total number of countries exempted up to 20. The Obama administration granted the waivers because they have, by the State Department’s designation, “significantly reduced their volume of crude oil purchases from Iran.” China got the exemption after reporting that its year-to-year Iranian oil imports between January and May were down by a quarter when comparing 2011 and 2012. Clinton went on:

Their cumulative actions are a clear demonstration to Iran’s government that Iran’s continued violation of its international nuclear obligations carries an enormous economic cost.

When the European Union oil embargo goes into effect July 1, Iran’s leaders will understand even more fully the urgency of the choice they face and the unity of the international community.

In a background briefing for reporters, a senior administration official added that the exemptions went to “major importers of Iranian oil.” The official said:

In pursuing the sanctions regime we’ve had the strong support of a broad coalition of countries all over the world who’ve stood united in sending the signal to Iran that its got to limit its nuclear program and address international concerns.

The official added: “It’s noteworthy that these are all the significant purchasers of Iranian oil. This is a diverse group of countries, some are U.S. allies and some are in the non-aligned movement.”

The reductions in exports — an Iranian official admitted Wednesday that export figures were down 20 to 30 percent — is likely to continue to depress an already hurting Iranian economy. “Iran’s currency, the Rial, has lost about 40 percent of its value since November 2011, and employment figures are increasing,” said the official. “Things will only go from bad to worse until Iran gets serious about addressing intelational concerns about its nuclear program.”

A potential Iranian nuclear weapon is widely considered a threat to both the security of the U.S. and its allies in the region, as well as the nuclear non-proliferation regime. U.S., U.N. and Israeli intelligence estimates give the West time to pursue a dual-track approach of pressure and diplomacy to resolve the crisis. Questions about the efficacy and potential consequences of a strike have led U.S. officials to declare that diplomacy is the “best and most permanent way” to resolve the crisis.

A leading Republican congressman compared today’s Supreme Court decision upholding Obamacare to the September 11th terrorist attacks.

Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), who had been in Republican House leadership until 2011 and is currently running for Indiana governor, made the claim during a closed-door meeting among Republican congressmen today. Politico has more:

In a closed door House GOP meeting Thursday, Indiana congressman and gubernatorial candidate Mike Pence likened the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the Democratic health care law to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, according to several sources present.

Pence apologized afterward, calling the remarks “thoughtless.”

This isn’t the first time the Indiana Republican has been embroiled in controversy for outrageous comparisons. In 2009, he thanked a town hall constituent who said that President Obama “sounds a lot like Hitler.”

Military contractors are in a full court press to prevent the automatic military spending cuts that will come into effect on January 2, 2013, an estimated $55 billion per year, if policymakers fail to avert a budget “sequester.” But while contractors are waving a defense industry funded report warning of 1 million defense industry jobs to be lost if sequestration occurs and the potential to push the U.S. into a new recession, experts are calling into question the veracity of the findings and the underlying assumptions about military spending’s benefits to the U.S. economy.

“The reality is that sequestration not only undermines our national security, it will hurt our economy and could fundamentally tear our defense industrial base,” New Hampshire Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) told a Brookings Institution forum Tuesday. But skeptics warn that such dire predictions are intentionally misleading.

Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Lawrence Korb took issue with those assumption in a column last November:

It is like arguing that defense is entitled to a specific share of the federal budget or gross domestic product. The federal government should base its defense spending on the strategy it develops to deal with the threats it faces — not on how many jobs it will create or the condition of our economy.

The [defense industry funded] study, which was briefed to Congress last month, analyzed the impact of potential defense cuts on employment. This is not only inappropriate and conceptually flawed, it seems self-serving.

Military spending hawks routinely fail to acknowledge that funding domestic priorities such as education, health care and clean energy create at least 50 percent more jobs than military spending.

Korb added that sequestration cuts would more likely results in 600,000 contractor jobs lost, not one million.

And defense cuts are not an across-the-board loss for American workers. “The $55 billion wouldn’t just disappear into the ether,” said Gordon Adams, who oversaw defense budgeting for the Clinton administration. “There would be other economic benefits from borrowing $55 billion for defense.” Adams says portions of the military spending cuts will be directed elsewhere, thereby creating jobs and helping the economy in communities across the country.

Questions are being raised about defense contractor Lockheed Martin’s dire threats to cut 123,000 jobs if sequestration occurs. “The timing of it is really suspicious,” Democratic strategist Garry South told The Daily Beast, adding that Lockheed appears to be “throw[ing] itself around in the political process.”

Todd Harrison, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments finds Lockheed’s warnings highly suspicious. “Will they have to lay some people off down the road, within a few months [or] in the next year or two? Absolutely,” Harrison told NPR. “But [as for] the timing of this — are they going to have to do that starting exactly on Jan. 3? I think that’s highly suspect.”

Reuters reported yesterday that sharp disputes have erupted within Mitt Romney’s foreign policy team. One “long-time Republican activist” close to the campaign’s moderate wing expressed concern that Romney’s “instinct is to call the Cheney-ites.” In other words, the neoconservatives on Romney’s team often win out over moderate voices.

Today, a New York Times report reinforced that view with a more concrete example. During the diplomatic crisis over Chinese dissident Chen Guangcheng, who escaped house arrest and sought refuge in the U.S. embassy, Romney took the Cheney-ite “hard line” on the advice of a former adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney. Romney, at the time, blasted the Obama administration’s handling of the crisis — before it was resolved.

According to the Times, this “hard line” adopted by Romney came directly from a literal “Cheney-ite” — not a Cheneyesque ideologue, but an actual former adviser to the ultra-hawkish former vice president. According to Romney advisers who spoke to the Times anonymously:

One adviser said to favor a more calibrated approach was Evan A. Feigenbaum, a co-chairman of Mr. Romney’s Asia-Pacific working group and a former State Department official. Arguing for a relatively more aggressive response was Aaron L. Friedberg, another co-chairman who was a national security aide to Vice President Dick Cheney. Mr. Friedberg is known for favoring a hard line on China, and others say it was almost certain the two men would stake out different ground.

Before the Chen incident, Romney-endorser and former U.S. ambassador to China Jon Huntsman said Romney’s China bluster was “typical” campaign rhetoric. As the Times put it, “Romney and his team respond to foreign crises and formulate policy in a highly charged political atmosphere.” The Times went on:

Mr. Romney and his tightknit staff often seek the most expedient way to gain political advantage and attack rivals. That can mean staking out ground well to the right in order to sharpen contrasts with Mr. Obama.

Romney probably stakes out these sorts of positions because his national security and foreign policies lack substance and, at other times, are difficult to distinguish from Obama’s. Romney presses for more military spending, but can’t overcome contradictions in his plan to reduce the debt and deficit. His bluster appears to draw distinctions on issues like Iran — where, despite past and some present hawkishness among advisers, Romney’s campaign positions looks a lot like Obama’s — and Syria, where Romney calls for arming rebels, something the Obama administration is already facilitating.

Reuters reports today that Mitt Romney’s campaign foreign policy advisers are increasingly at odds, with the moderate faction fighting the neocons. “[F]ights have broken out over touchstone issues such as Russia and China,” Reuters says. The New York Times reported as much back in May and the campaign stresses that internal disputes are part of the normal process.

But one question is, which side is winning? One senior Republican operative told Reuters that it’s “the Cheney-ites”:

A long-time Republican activist who has been in contact with some of the Romney camp’s more centrist elements said that moderates “are very concerned about the fact that if Romney needs to call anyone, his instinct is to call the Cheney-ites.”

This is a reference to acolytes of former Vice President Dick Cheney. Several top former Cheney aides are among Romney’s advisers.

The Times also reported a Romney adviser saying the former Massachusetts governor doesn’t want to talk foreign policy during the campaign. Reuters says the fights over policy have resulted “in full-time staffers trying to limit Romney’s public statements on foreign policy” which perhaps explains why Romney’s foreign policy on a number of key issues isn’t all that different from President Obama’s.

But — despite the influence of moderates like Richard Williamson — the GOP operative’s observation confirms suspicions that Romney’s foreign policy is really being run by those that brought you the war in Iraq and want another in Iran. They’re just not comfortable talking about it — yet.

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has made a point of criticizing President Obama’s diplomacy with China and “strategic pivot” to Asia as “invevitably weaken[ing]” the U.S. military position in Asia.

But while the Romney campaign takes increasingly hawkish positions towards China — former GOP presidential candidate Jon Huntsman even acknowledged that Romney’s rhetoric sounded like “typical” campaign bluster — a new public opinion poll shows the U.S. public is far from sharing Romney’s antagonistic perception.

Indeed, a new poll [PDF] conducted by the Committee of 100, a nonpartisan Chinese-American group, did find that militaristic rhetoric about China’s rise appears to have some resonance in U.S. public opinion — two-thirds of Americans see China as a serious or potential military threat. But the poll also found overall American sentiments toward Beijing are surprisingly mixed.

The poll data reveals that the general public holds a much more favorable view of China than business leaders and policymakers think.

Fifty-five percent of the general public views China favorably, a three percent increase from 2007. But business leaders and policymakers, whom the Committee of 100 polled separately, vastly underestimate the U.S. public’s views on China. Business leaders believe only 20 percent of the U.S. public hold a favorable view of China and policymakers say 17 percent.

Other polls found varying results about the American public’s views of China but a recent Gallup poll, which showed only 42 percent of Americans holding a positive opinion of China, reported that 80 percent of Americans think a close relationship with China is a good thing.

Read more

Earlier this month, fifteen state attorneys general announced an investigation into QuinStreet for its role in connecting veterans and servicemembers to its for-profit school clients via a website called “GIBill.com” — which is not affiliated with the U.S. government.

But all that’s about to change. Today Gov. Jack Conway (D-KY) announced a settlement with QuinStreet, the Army Times reports:

QuinStreet Inc., a marketing company accused of misleading veterans and steering them toward for-profit colleges, will hand over its GIBill.com domain to the Veterans Affairs Department and pay $2.5 million to cover investigation costs under an agreement signed Tuesday with the attorneys general of several states.

QuinStreet posted the terms of the voluntary agreement in a Securities Exchange Commission filing linked to from its Wednesday. According to the filing, QuinStreet has been negotiating with the attorneys general of several states. Fifteen states were investigating the company for violation of their consumer protection laws.

“This company preyed on our veterans who received educational benefits as a result of their military service to our country,” General Conway said in a statement. “The actions were unconscionable and purposefully drove veterans to for-profit colleges who were perhaps more interested in getting their hands on the federal benefits than in educating our soldiers and their families.”

Among other terms of the settlement, social media accounts associated with GIBill.com will be shut down and QuinStreet’s military-related websites will be required to unavoidably disclose that they are not affiliated or operated by the U.S. government. QuinStreet sites will also “no longer be able to make any claims that the information presented on the site is ‘neutral’ or ‘unbiased’ or that schools are “top” or “best” unless the information comes from an independent source.”

Former Defense Secretary William Cohen said in an interview with CNN last night that the U.S. doesn’t want to go to war in Syria, but with tensions mounting between Turkey — a NATO ally — and Syrian dictator Bashar al Assad’s embattled government over a downed Turkish plane, the U.S.’s alliance may require it to:

COHEN: I think that [Assad] wants to be careful. Russia wants to be careful. NATO wants to be careful that we don’t see this spin out of control that suddenly there’s a war declared against Syria by NATO, which I think doesn’t have the power to declare war, but has the power to declare we’re with Turkey if Turkey should respond from a military point of view… We have to be very careful there. We want to avoid that.

I think the shot that’s been fired is a verbal one, saying that Syria, you’re on notice. If you so much as fire one of our aircraft again, we’re going to retaliate, and it won’t be a very low level. So, I think Syria is on notice.

The United States, the other NATO countries, are saying we’re with you politically. We hope we don’t have to be involved in a war, but if war comes, it’s one nation of NATO, it’s all of us.

Watch the video:

Cohen is referring to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty which states that an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all members, and each “will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”

Turkey’s stance toward Syria’s brutal crackdown on Arab Spring demonstrations last year and, now, military assaults against civilian areas in its civil war with various rebel factions has grown more aggressive. Turkey hosts the main exiled Syrian opposition group, the Syrian National Council, and leadership of the largest rebel faction, the Free Syrian Army. According to reports, Turkey sold anti-tank missiles to the rebels, purchased with Saudia Arabian and Qatari money.