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.