But it's tempting to suspect that lobbying isn't the real issue here, and that the that paper is rather more concerned with what it describes as the NIAC's "emergence as a major player in Washington and leading voice for engaging Iran and ultimately lifting U.S. sanctions". Indeed, it's easy to conclude from the tone of the piece and of the developing conversation surrounding it, that the real mission here is to paint Parsi as a tool of the Islamic Republic and therefore an enemy of America.

After all, the Washington Times - and the voices that have lined up to support it on this issue - don't have a problem with lobbyists per se. (Or indeed with charismatic leaders. The Washington TImes was founded by Sun Myung Moon and is funded by the Moonies.)

No, this constituency is among the staunch supporters of the lobby system, particularly of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, one of the biggest lobby groups of them all. Any criticism of that group is decried as de facto anti-semitism, and its right to buy influence on Capitol Hill is sacrosanct.

To express anything less than hysterical condemnation of all things Iranian, however, calls forth a different response.