As the war between Israel and Iran intensifies, a seismic shift has emerged in the rhetoric of world leaders and the trajectory of the conflict. US President Donald Trump issued a stark and sweeping demand: Iran must surrender unconditionally.
The demand, made publicly during a press conference at the White House, draws on growing speculation that the Iranian government may be nearing the end of its capacity to fight a prolonged war.
That speculation has only intensified following a major escalation: The United States has now formally joined Israel in direct military action, launching coordinated airstrikes against three of Iran’s most sensitive and fortified nuclear sites -- Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow.
The attack marks a significant turning point in the conflict, signaling a unified Western resolve to eliminate Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and weaken its military-industrial backbone.
Israel, for its part, has gained a clear edge in the ongoing hostilities. Within days of the initial exchange of fire, the Israeli military had not only asserted aerial superiority but also inflicted severe damage on Iran’s military infrastructure. Airstrikes have decimated command centres, missile stockpiles, and key nuclear sites that once stood at the heart of Iran’s defense doctrine.
More shockingly, several of Iran’s top military leaders -- figures considered irreplaceable by many analysts -- have been killed in the campaign. The effectiveness of Israel’s offensive, now bolstered by US involvement, has led some observers to wonder: Is this the beginning of the end for the Islamic Republic? And if so, will Iran’s leadership actually surrender?
In many wars, especially those that reach a point of severe imbalance, the conclusion comes not through negotiated settlements but through one-sided surrenders. This pattern of collapse is often followed by either a peace agreement, a political transition, or a complete restructuring of governance.
Why would Iran surrender?
The logic of war would suggest that Iran, overwhelmed by superior firepower, international isolation, and internal decay, should ultimately throw in the towel.
But when it comes to the Islamic Republic, things are not so simple. For many reasons -- political, psychological, and existential -- Iran’s government is unlikely to surrender. In fact, it is more probable that the leadership will choose to fight to the bitter end, even if the battlefield is reduced to shadows, bunkers, and ruins.
One of the most significant reasons Iran’s ruling elite will resist surrender is fear -- fear of what might follow their collapse. Over the past decade, the Islamic Republic has been rocked by some of the largest, most sustained protest movements in its history.
Millions of Iranians have poured into the streets demanding justice, economic reform, an end to corruption, and a complete dismantling of the clerical establishment.
From the 2019 protests over fuel prices to the nationwide uprising following the death of Mahsa Amini in 2022, Iran’s streets became a recurring theater of revolt.
In such a climate of public anger and mistrust, the ruling class knows that any surrender could open the floodgates to retribution. If the government collapses, the Iranian people -- or the transitional government that follows -- may seek to hold top officials accountable. Crimes against humanity, corruption, human rights violations, and political repression could all come under scrutiny in a post-government Iran.
The prospect of facing international tribunals or even domestic trials is enough to make surrender unthinkable for those currently in power. They understand that stepping down might not just mean the loss of office, but the loss of their freedom -- or even their lives.
Adding to this paranoia is the reality that there are few viable exit routes available to Iran’s ruling elite. While some might think these are the places Iranian leaders can flee to -- countries like Russia, Venezuela, or Cuba -- these supposed sanctuaries are far from secure. Russia, embroiled in its own international isolation and economic decline, may not have the capacity or willingness to indefinitely host high-profile fugitives from Iran.
Latin American nations, while sympathetic to anti-American governments, have their own political instabilities to contend with. Moreover, even if Iran’s leaders do manage to flee, there’s always the looming risk of extradition. If a new Iranian government emerges and establishes diplomatic ties with the West, it could easily demand the return of former officials to stand trial. Life in exile, then, would likely be a shaky and paranoid existence.
Israel-US poised to win
Israel, meanwhile, seems poised to continue its campaign of degrading Iran’s military and nuclear capabilities. With air superiority already established, the Israeli Air Force can now operate with relative impunity over Iranian skies. The addition of US firepower -- especially the high-precision targeting of critical nuclear facilities at Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow -- has amplified the scale and intensity of the assault. These coordinated strikes have not only crippled Iran’s nuclear advancement but also served to isolate the regime further on the international stage.
Iran’s leaders are likely betting that this air war will remain limited in scope. They may believe that as long as the conflict does not descend into a ground war, they can survive the onslaught. Their strategy, it seems, is to endure, absorb the damage, and hope that international diplomacy or domestic resilience can offer them a way back from the brink. This is a gamble, of course -- but one that similar governments have made before. The leadership may calculate that it is better to be weak but in power than to surrender and risk annihilation.
A model they may be looking at is Hezbollah in 2025. Despite Israel’s intensive air campaign that has severely damaged Hezbollah’s weapons stockpiles, command centres, and missile infrastructure in southern Lebanon, the group has not been eliminated.
A weakened but still intact Hezbollah remains embedded within the Lebanese political and social structure, continuing to function as both a militia and a political actor. Iran’s leaders may be drawing parallels from this outcome. Even after suffering immense military losses, Hezbollah endures -- and that endurance might offer Iran a psychological and strategic template. The thinking may be that if Hezbollah can survive relentless Israeli assaults and retain some form of operational and political presence, then perhaps the Islamic Republic, even in a debilitated state, can also weather the storm and rebuild over time.
The consequences of Iran falling
But the comparison only goes so far. Unlike Hezbollah, Iran is a state -- with embassies, a currency, critical infrastructure, and a deeply embedded security apparatus. The fall of Iran’s central authority would unleash a level of chaos that Hezbollah never had to contend with. From separatist movements to tribal rivalries to economic collapse, the unraveling of Iran would be immense.
This, too, informs the government’s thinking. By continuing to fight, even in diminished form, they maintain a grip -- however tenuous -- on the direction of the country. Surrender, on the other hand, means handing the wheel to forces that may be hostile, chaotic, or revolutionary.
For now, the war grinds on. Missiles fall, airstrikes roar, and civilians brace for whatever comes next. The recent US-Israeli joint strikes on Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow have dealt a devastating blow to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, yet the regime remains unbowed. Whether that refusal leads to prolonged devastation or a final reckoning remains to be seen. But one thing is increasingly clear: The Iranian government does not seem to be surrendering anytime soon.
Dr Majid Rafizadeh is a political scientist specializing in US foreign policy and the Middle East, and is a Harvard-educated scholar. A version of this article previously appeared in Al-Arabiya and has been reprinted under special arrangement.
