(FORTUNE Magazine) – Philip Morris says in a position paper that it wants to give the Food and Drug Administration "meaningful, tough, and effective regulatory authority over tobacco products." But a lot of bigwigs in Washington are wondering if that's, well, a smoke screen. FDA oversight should be the last thing the nation's largest cigarette maker would back.

Philip Morris' man-bites-dog effort has enhanced the chances that the FDA will eventually regulate tobacco. Whenever an industry's prime player supports government intervention, odds are it will happen.

But nothing's on the level in the capital; that goes double for the politics of tobacco. So what's Philip Morris up to? Steve Parrish, a senior vice president, says that if regulation is coming, Philip Morris should help shape it. "If there are issues or problems involving your product, you have to be part of the solution process," he says. "If you're not, your problems will only increase." Moreover, the company would rather face one set of federal rules than one each from 50 states. With "reduced risk" cigarettes, he adds, "we think it's important for the FDA to set some guidelines about what can be said about the health claims of these products." Warnings on packages might include new FDA wording about "safer" cigarettes.

Okay, so what is Philip Morris not saying? Even tobacco-friendly Republicans have their theories. Louisiana's Billy Tauzin, chairman of the House Commerce Committee, suggests, "Philip Morris is the only company big enough to survive FDA regulation." So if regulation bankrupts the other tobacco firms, Philip Morris could charge whatever it wanted to consumers addicted to its product. "I don't think that's good," Tauzin adds.

Another notion--and worry--is that FDA regulation, no matter how stringent, might be perceived as a government seal of approval. Overseas that could result in higher cigarette sales in developing nations in Asia and Africa. In this country, any sort of accord between the industry and the FDA on how to describe "reduced risk" cigarettes might also encourage people to believe that smoking cigarettes is safe. In addition, says Iowa Congressman Greg Ganske, a physician and a Republican, "if [the industry] were able to get a sign-off from the FDA, they think that would decrease their liability risk."

Public health experts see other nefarious plots. They assert that Philip Morris' plan wouldn't sufficiently curtail cigarette marketing. Nor would it permit the FDA to demand changes in the basic contents of cigarettes. "What Philip Morris wants is a government agency to review new products as a way to promote those products as potentially less hazardous," says Matt Myers of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. "This is one of the most cynical public relations gestures it has ever tried."

Philip Morris disagrees. Parrish says the FDA would crack down if cigarette makers used regulation as a sales tool. He also denies that the company sees lawsuit protection if the FDA gets involved.

No matter. Something may well happen. Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson says he favors FDA regulation of tobacco. And GOP Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee has introduced a Philip Morris-leaning FDA bill. The question is, How much regulation can pass? Philip Morris doesn't want much. Public health officials expect a lot. As Ganske says, "Sometimes strange things happen once you start the legislative process moving." Few things, however, are stranger than this.