First: thanks to M. LeBlanc and Ned and Jamelle. I couldn’t have asked for a greater platoon of pinchhitters. I’m not even being parochial. The Atlantic Wire commended M’s eloquent post about the pending trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Now: Eli Lake’s piece about Trita Parsi and the National Iranian-American Council. I say this as someone who has a great deal of personal affection and professional respect for my friend Eli and who generally sees policy toward Iran in a similar way to Trita. Basically, Eli’s piece asks if NIAC functions as an undeclared lobby, acting on behalf of the Iranian regime. And even if you take the most expansive and uncharitable view of the evidence Eli compiles, the answer is: maaaaybe NIAC might have crossed from “education” to “lobbying” activities on select occasions. But that still begs the question of why NIAC expressly opposes — vigorously — the Iranian government. That makes it quite the curious lobby. Still, read and see what you think. NIAC’s response is here.

My understanding is that much of Eli’s piece — though I should say I haven’t asked him about his sources and have too much respect for him to do so — comes from the discovery phase of a defamation lawsuit NIAC filed against someone named Hassan Daioleslam, whom NIAC claims is tied to the weird cult known as the Mujahideen-e-Khalq. Josh Rogin does some additional reporting from that discovery, and finds something about Dai’s motivations for hunting Trita:

“I strongly believe that Trita Parsi is the weakest part of the Iranian web because he is related to Siamak Namazi and Bob Ney,” Daioleslam wrote in one e-mail dated April 2, 2008, “I believe that destroying him will be the start of attacking the whole web. This is an integral part of any attack on Clinton or Obama.”

OK then. Parsi believes that sanctioning Iran aids the regime and engagement is the wisest course of action. He attracts criticism from those who disagree. I remember when conservatives opposed criminalizing politics.