Matter of Time
How the United States and Germany's Failure to Accurately Distinguish between Long-Term and Short-Term Conditions Is Undermining Their Ability to Operate on the World Stage
Jon Kurpis is an elected official, writer, and entrepreneur dedicated to advocating for everyday citizens. Known for his independent mindset and principled approach, Kurpis is respected for holding those in power accountable. His background in government, policy, and geopolitics makes him a trusted voice on complex political and cultural matters. He is a Guest Contributor to The Duran Daily. For more his writing visit his account on Substack (kurpis.substack.com).
Time, as a concept, can be understood in many different ways. There is the fortune of good timing and the opportunities it creates, or conversely, the consequences of bad timing and the damage it can cause.
Ultimately, an understanding of time, both in the short-term and the long-term , is essential to the successful operation and preservation of any civilized society. When a society loses the ability to separate immediate concerns from future consequences, poor decisions become unavoidable as long-term interests are sacrificed for temporary outcomes.
This article will explore two recent examples of how the United States and Germany are misreading time and priority in economic and geopolitical affairs, and how that disconnect is contributing to colossal mistakes.
History
For thousands of years, people have been developing sophisticated understandings of time in order to predict outcomes. This has occurred across the globe and many cultures have contributed to the advancement of this knowledge, including the Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Chinese, Greeks, and Romans.
Humans’ understanding of time began with studying natural cycles such as sunrise, sunset, and the movement of stars and constellations. From these observations emerged increasingly refined technologies including sundials, water clocks, and hourglasses, accompanied by more structured systems of chronology like the Julian and Gregorian calendars. Over the centuries, timekeeping continued to advance through pendulum clocks, quartz technology, and ultimately the atomic clocks the world relies on today.
By understanding how events and patterns unfold over time, civilizations gained the ability to prepare for danger, minimize instability, and improve their chances of prosperity. And in modern times, nations still devote enormous resources toward forecasting, planning, and preparedness exercises designed to anticipate how different scenarios may develop and how best to respond to them.
At a fundamental level, it makes perfect sense that human civilization is built upon a foundation of understanding time. Scholars accept that if early cultures were unable to predict seasonal weather cycles, the consequences would have been catastrophic for agricultural development. Just as important and often undiscussed is how this understanding of time is equally relevant in a military context.
Take a moment to imagine an ancient tribe protected by a large body of water that enemy forces could not cross. That body of water would function as a natural defensive barrier and provide security to the population. However, if once per decade there was a deep Arctic freeze, the body of water would become solid. Suddenly that same civilization would become vulnerable to invasion because the barrier no longer existed.
An understanding of time and seasonal pattern recognition would therefore allow that society to identify and prepare for the period in which it risked being exposed to attack. Fortifications could be strengthened, forces repositioned, and supplies gathered in advance. Understanding long-term cycles is an essential element to security and survival. And by having this knowledge, societies knew that an attack was possible and also that it was a permanent problem that always had to be accounted for.
Likewise, short-term timing was equally important. If an ancient tribe understood that the appearance of a certain bird indicated the precise moment to plant crops, then identifying and then acting on this information would produce long-term nutritional stability. But if those signs were misunderstood or ignored, the same society would squander the opportunity and face famine or collapse.
History has repeatedly demonstrated that learning how to properly balance both short-term and long-term thinking has been key to our survival. These universal principles have carried forward into the modern era and remain deeply connected to current international relations, geopolitics, and statecraft.
To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a subscriber.
Thank you!
Two Examples
If there are two Western nations that exemplify the ability to maximize planning and leverage the advantages provided by foresight, they would almost certainly be the United States and Germany.
In the case of Germany, the country has long possessed a global reputation for engineering, precision manufacturing, and disciplined planning. Likewise, the United States has been blessed with unparalleled advantages in technology, scientific innovation, military capability, and intelligence gathering. Few societies in human history have ever had the predictive capability available to either the United States or Germany.
And yet, despite possessing these extraordinary advantages, the most consequential issues facing both countries appear rooted in an inability to properly distinguish between immediate concerns and long-term strategic consequences.
Germany
As a nation, Germany has increasingly undergone a process of deindustrialization that, while often presented politically as environmentally responsible and socially beneficial, is in many respects undermining the very foundations that made it one of the world’s great industrial powers.
Over the last decade, this trend has manifested itself through a series of policy decisions, including aggressive green energy initiatives and the complete shutdown of Germany’s nuclear power infrastructure.
Perhaps most critically, Germany has intentionally moved away from access to the cheap and reliable energy sources that historically powered its industrial base. Policies restricting or eliminating Russian imports dramatically increased energy costs throughout the country, placing enormous pressure on manufacturing sectors that depend upon affordable fuel to remain globally competitive.
Drones
Faced with the growing economic pressures that accompany deindustrialization and the loss of access to cheap Russian energy, Germany, under Chancellor Friedrich “BlackRock” Merz, has made the decision to heavily invest in drone manufacturing, including the retrofitting of portions of Germany’s industrial and automotive infrastructure to support large scale drone production.
At first glance, such a move may appear logical. Germany is searching for new industrial relevance at a time when traditional manufacturing sectors are under strain, and military drones have undeniably become one of the defining technologies of current conflicts. However, the deeper issue is not simply the investment itself, but the failure to properly understand the timing and long-term viability of such a strategy.
What stands out as most concerning is that Germany appears to be approaching mass drone manufacturing as though it represents a durable long-term industrial solution capable of replacing lost economic productivity. However, this assumption may already be outdated.
In the past year alone, countries such as China have made rapid advances in counter drone technologies specifically designed to neutralize mass drone warfare. For example, the Hurricane 3000 system, is a high-power microwave (HPM) technology that is truck-mounted and built to disable drone swarms using electromagnetic interference and other advanced signal disruption technologies.
Whether through these Chinese products or future innovations still under development, the current dominance of drone swarm warfare is far more temporary than German policymakers assume.
This is where the issue of timing becomes relevant. Germany is treating mass drone manufacturing as a long-term industrial and military solution, while the technology itself is already approaching a period of rapid obsolescence due to equally aggressive advances in drone countermeasures.
Even if one were to assume that German mass drone production represented a significant long-term revenue channel, the country would still face overwhelming structural disadvantages in trying to compete globally within that market. And given that this entire predicament is the result of deindustrialization, it is hard to grasp what makes Germany believe it could realistically outcompete industrial and technological powerhouses such as China, the United States, or Russia in mass drone production.
Lastly, if manufacturing military drones is intended to serve as a new industrial foundation for Germany, then the long-term profitability of that enterprise would depend upon new global conflicts as the current wars in Ukraine and Iran will not continue on indefinitely. This means that Germany will be financially incentivized to create geopolitical instability and future military confrontations elsewhere in the world.
United States
As remarkable as Germany’s failure to properly understand the timing and long-term viability of its drone initiatives may be, the United States is committing an even more unfathomable miscalculation with regard to Iran and their nuclear ambitions.
The first major error being made by the United States is the assumption that the Iranian nuclear issue is fundamentally a short-term problem that can be solved through immediate action. Whether through diplomacy, sanctions, regime change, inspections, or direct military strikes against nuclear infrastructure, the dominant Western belief remains that sufficient pressure or intervention can permanently resolve Iran’s nuclear capabilities in the present moment.
This American perspective entirely misunderstands the nature of time and permanence as it relates to Iran’s nuclear program. The fact of the matter is that the Iranian nuclear issue is not a temporary problem at all. It is a permanent strategic reality.
Capability
In order to be a true nuclear-capable nation-state, three essential conditions must be met.
· First, a nation must possess the scientific and technical knowledge necessary to enrich uranium and weaponize nuclear material.
· Second, it must have the industrial and manufacturing capacity required to build and maintain the infrastructure necessary for enrichment and weapons development.
· Third, it must possess reliable access to the raw materials required for the process, particularly uranium itself.
In the case of Iran, all three of these essential conditions already exist.
Iran has demonstrated conclusively that it possesses the scientific knowledge, technical expertise, and engineering capability required to enrich uranium. That knowledge cannot be erased through diplomacy, sanctions, or military strikes.
Likewise, Iran also possesses substantial industrial and manufacturing capacity capable of supporting enrichment infrastructure and nuclear development efforts. Even if their current facilities were damaged or dismantled, the underlying manufacturing capability is easy to rebuild.
Most importantly, Iran possesses domestic uranium reserves and access to the materials necessary to continue enrichment activities into the future. This point is often overlooked, yet it may be the most important aspect of the entire issue.
As long as a nation possesses the technical knowledge, industrial capability, and raw materials necessary for nuclear development, the issue itself never fully disappears. It can be delayed, monitored, or temporarily disrupted, but it cannot simply be eliminated through outside actions.
This is where the failure to understand time once again becomes germane. The United States continues approaching the Iranian nuclear issue as though it is a temporary crisis requiring immediate solutions, when in reality it is a long-term strategic condition that must be managed from a generational perspective.
Nuclear Ambitions
In addition to the issues discussed above, the short-term American interpretation of the Iranian nuclear question has created secondary ramifications that further complicate an already difficult geopolitical problem.
Current United States policy is largely built upon the assumption that Tehran’s primary objective is the acquisition of a nuclear weapon. However, that assumption represents a significant misreading of Iran’s broader strategic ambitions and the role its nuclear program plays within them.
As we sit here today, Iran possesses the scientific knowledge, industrial capacity, technological capability, and domestic uranium resources necessary to enrich uranium and develop nuclear weapons whenever it chooses. Those underlying facts are permanent. Fortunately, Iran is a rational actor when it comes to nuclear-related matters and does not view the immediate creation of a nuclear weapon as being in its strategic interest.
From Iran’s standpoint, openly crossing the threshold into becoming a declared nuclear weapons state would trigger a regional chain reaction. Countries such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey would pursue nuclear capabilities of their own, fundamentally transforming the Middle East into a far more unstable and dangerous geopolitical environment.
Instead, Iran’s objectives are focused on sovereignty, legitimacy, economic stability, and retaining strategic leverage over time. Iran wants to continue enriching uranium for civilian purposes, allow its stockpiles and capabilities to periodically create international concern, and then negotiate economic incentives in exchange for temporary limitations or reductions.
From the American perspective, the issue is immediate and urgent. Either the United States prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, or Iran crosses the threshold and permanently alters the strategic balance of the Middle East. Under this American framework, the conflict becomes centered on stopping what is viewed as a short-term irreversible outcome.
However, when examined more impartially and through a broader understanding of time, it becomes apparent that Iran does not view the nuclear issue as a short-term sprint toward weaponization at all. Rather, Iran approaches the matter as a long-term diplomatic, economic, and strategic mechanism capable of being leveraged indefinitely. Unfortunately, the United States continues to interpret the issue through a narrower framework focused primarily on immediate weaponization. As a result, American diplomats and negotiators often find themselves talking past their Iranian counterparts rather than understanding the strategic logic underpinning Iran’s position.
Conclusion
While there are obviously many pressures that shape the decisions made by the United States and Germany, it is nevertheless striking that the most serious mistakes can be directly traced back to a fundamental misunderstanding of time itself and the variables associated with it.
Whether it is Germany’s assumption that a massive pivot into drone manufacturing can serve as an long-term reindustrialization strategy or the United States approaching Iran’s nuclear policy as a temporary crisis rather than a permanent geopolitical reality, the underlying deficiency remains remarkably similar. In both cases, short-term thinking is being applied to issues whose timelines and consequences operate on entirely different scales.
My goal in writing this article was to expose the flaws in American and German foreign policy and decision making while demonstrating how the inability to properly evaluate issues through both short term and long-term frameworks is pushing these nations toward serious strategic failure. Hopefully, the information presented here has provided a clearer understanding of what is actually taking place beneath the surface of many of today’s economic and geopolitical crises.
Unfortunately, neither the United States nor Germany appears anywhere close to meaningfully reassessing these errors or correcting the assumptions that continue guiding their policies. Instead, the same patterns remain deeply embedded even as the consequences grow increasingly difficult to ignore.
This dysfunctional way of operating will not endure forever. In matters such as these, public narratives may influence perception for a time, but reality eventually asserts itself through outcomes that become part of the historical record. Nations may postpone acknowledging their mistakes, but they cannot escape their consequences indefinitely.
And while the United States and Germany may still be far from confronting these issues responsibly or correcting their geopolitical misunderstandings, eventually reality itself will force that recognition upon them. It’s only a Matter of Time.
As always, I thank you all for your continued support and readership.
In addition, I would like to express my gratitude to Alex Christoforou and Alexander Mercouris for the invitation to participate in the discussion.
Until next time,
Jon Kurpis
DISCLAIMER: This article is published strictly in my personal capacity and reflects only my individual views and analysis. Nothing herein should be interpreted as an official statement, communication, or policy position associated with my role as an elected official, any municipality, governmental authority, political party, or affiliated public institution. Furthermore, the perspectives expressed do not necessarily reflect the views or positions of The Duran.
If you assume that the US actually thinks Iran is a threat if they obtain nuclear weapons your take makes sense. However, it seems obvious that the reality is the US is doing this for Israel in furtherance of a delusional Zionist dream of "Greater Israel" for the Jews and bringing Jesus back for Armageddon for the "Christian" Zionists, the rulers of the empire are truly insane.
Great points. But an Iranian nuclear weapon is not a real concern of America. Imagine analyzing American aims in Iraq as if they were actually about WMD. That analysis would have had zero predictive power, and been entirely meaningless. It's the same this time. Lies and public justifications for Imperial war are not a good basis for analysis. America is not making a single decision about Iran based on an actual fear of an Iranian nuke. America is making decisions about Iran based on the existential financial necessity of brining more collateral under it's dominion.