Without getting into the argument over what "Taqiya" actually is, I'm fascinated by the conservative attempt to make a simple concept -- "lying" -- sound much more sinister and essential by giving it an Islamic name, which sounds rather like one of the notes Jews blow on the Shofar. It would, frankly, be a little weird if Iranian politicians and diplomats didn't say different things to different audiences. This would make them quite unlike Western politicians and diplomats, and thus arguably harder to predict. Luckily, they do say different things to different audiences. They say things likely to get them elected when talking to voters and things likely to not get their country blown up or their economy shut down or their regime toppled when talking to international actors. Happily, years of statecraft have given us a variety of tools and methods that we use to discern the true objectives of dissembling actors. We focus on this thing called "interests." But because the interests of the Iranian regime -- among others, "survival" -- suggest they will not launch unprovoked nuclear attacks, neoconservative "scholars" like Michael Rubin have had to come up with some way to disrupt analysis of interests. And so garden variety lying becomes an unpredictable and unfamiliar Islamic precept called "Taqiya" and a state that acts in a broadly predictable manners is recast as an eschatological cult that aches for world war in order to trigger the end days. On the other hand, our leaders mostly claim to believe in the Bible, including the Rapture, and our leaders also do a lot of lying, which probably means that the Iranian government would be wise to launch a first strike, which probably means we should preempt them and launch a strike of our own. So really, any way you look at it, it's time to attack Iran.
