In Washington, a familiar assumption persists: that pressure, enough sanctions, enough isolation, and enough military risk will eventually force Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to yield. Perhaps not immediately. Perhaps not publicly. But eventually. That assumption misunderstands the man at the center of Iran’s political system.

Khamenei will not accept “unconditional surrender,” not because he misreads the balance of power and not because he underestimates the economic damage inflicted on his country. He will not surrender because, in his worldview, surrender is not a policy outcome. To concede under maximalist pressure would not simply be a tactical adjustment. It would be an existential rupture to his power and identity. To understand this, one must begin not with centrifuges nor the missile, but with identity.

In Washington, a familiar assumption persists: that pressure, enough sanctions, enough isolation, and enough military risk will eventually force Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to yield. Perhaps not immediately. Perhaps not publicly. But eventually. That assumption misunderstands the man at the center of Iran’s political system.

Khamenei will not accept “unconditional surrender,” not because he misreads the balance of power and not because he underestimates the economic damage inflicted on his country. He will not surrender because, in his worldview, surrender is not a policy outcome. To concede under maximalist pressure would not simply be a tactical adjustment. It would be an existential rupture to his power and identity. To understand this, one must begin not with centrifuges nor the missile, but with identity.

Khamenei does not view the Islamic Revolution of 1979 as a concluded event. He sees it as an unfinished condition—a struggle that continues under new forms. Resistance, in his vocabulary, is not a tactic; it is a personal identity.

This orientation is not rhetorical flourish. It is embedded in his biography. Khamenei’s political identity was forged in opposition to the shah, shaped by imprisonment, and consolidated during the Iran-Iraq War. Struggle accompanied by pain is not an unfortunate contingency in his narrative; it is a moral validation.

His literary preferences reflect this mindset. Among the works that he has publicly admired is Mikhail Sholokhov’s And Quiet Flows the Don, whose protagonist, Grigory Melekhov, navigates World War I, the Russian Revolution, and civil war while clinging to a deeply personal sense of honor and endurance. In Sholokhov’s world, turmoil is not an aberration. It is formative. The protagonist does not transcend chaos; he is forged in it. The novel is not a celebration of triumph. It is a meditation on survival amid upheaval. Khamenei is drawn not to detached observers of revolution, but to authors born of it. For him, resistance under pressure is not irrational stubbornness. It is fidelity to self.

This matters to policy. Leaders who view compromise as tactical can be pressured into it. Leaders who view capitulation as identity collapse cannot. For Khamenei, the Islamic Republic exists in a similar permanent crucible. Sanctions, sabotage, and confrontation are not interruptions of normality. They are proof that the revolution remains alive. In his mind, to capitulate under such pressure would not restore stability. It would deny the revolution’s continuity.

There is another reason Khamenei will not surrender: the shadow of 1988. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s acceptance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 598 at the end of the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988) left a complicated legacy. By likening it to “drinking a chalice of poison,” the revolutionary founder framed the cease-fire as a painful necessity rather than a negotiated victory. Among parts of the revolutionary base, the episode symbolized not only endurance but also concession.

Khamenei inherited power in 1989 without Khomeini’s charismatic authority or clerical rank. For decades, he has governed under the founder’s shadow. Unlike Khomeini, his authority rests less on personal charisma and more on ideological consistency and institutional control. To accept a settlement framed as “unconditional surrender” would not only undermine that consistency; it would collapse the narrative distinction that he has carefully constructed between himself and the founding leader. In this sense, refusing to drink the chalice is not merely about the United States. It is about escaping Khomeini’s shadow.

Khamenei also carries a particular reading of 1979. He watched the collapse of the Pahlavi regime not because of the shah’s insufficient force, but because of his hesitation. In the Islamic Republic’s internal memory, hesitation, not repression, precipitated collapse. The lesson absorbed by Khamenei’s leadership is stark: Retreat under pressure invites further pressure, concession signals fragility, and fragility accelerates downfall. That historical imprint shapes Khamenei’s refusal to reenact what his predecessor once described as drinking poison.

There is another dimension often overlooked in Western debates: the politics of martyrdom. U.S. policymakers often assume that credible military threat compels moderation. But this assumption presumes that survival is the supreme value.

In the ayatollah’s universe, martyrdom is sacralized as moral triumph. Death in resistance does not signify defeat. It sanctifies continuity. In such a narrative universe, the prospect of assassination or targeted killing does not necessarily produce deterrence. It may produce sanctification.

This does not mean that Khamenei seeks death. But it does mean he understands the symbolic capital of martyrdom. Should he be killed in confrontation with the United States or Israel, his legacy would likely be recast as one of ultimate resistance. He would likely be transformed into official narrative from an embattled ruler to a martyred guardian of dignity.

Such an outcome could paradoxically stabilize his legacy. The failures of his tenure, from economic stagnation and increasing public discontent to blocking political reform and the collapse of Iran-led “axis of resistance,” would be compressed into a simpler moral story of sacrifice: steadfastness unto death.

The ayatollah’s martyrdom might also expand the maneuvering space of successors. A post-Khamenei leadership inheriting a sanctified legacy of the mantle of a “martyred” leader might possess greater flexibility to recalibrate domestic, nuclear, or regional policies without appearing weak. The symbolic rigidity attached to Khamenei personally could dissolve into institutional flexibility and pragmatism. In this sense, his refusal to surrender today does not foreclose transformation tomorrow. It postpones it.

Most analyses of Iran’s nuclear program begin from deterrence theory: Tehran seeks leverage, insurance, or latent weaponization capacity. Even some of Khamenei’s domestic critics as well as his radical supporters frame it as a latent weapons hedge. From this perspective, the nuclear file is instrumental; it is a bargaining chip or hedge against the country’s vulnerability. Yet such interpretations miss a central dimension of Khamenei’s worldview: the politics of dignity and ontological security.

For him, the Islamic Republic is not merely a sovereign state seeking survival. It is a revolutionary project whose legitimacy rests on resistance to U.S. domination. Therefore, the nuclear program in his narrative is not primarily about survival, nor is it about having a bomb. It is about being a revolutionary state.

Throughout his speeches, he frames Western pressure not as issue-specific disagreement but as hostility toward the Islamic Republic’s very being. To surrender under maximalist demand would be coded as humiliation. And humiliation, in Khamenei’s discourse, is more dangerous than economic deprivation.

This helps explain Khamenei’s behavior across negotiation cycles. The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was acceptable insofar as it preserved enrichment and avoided the optics of capitulation. When Trump withdrew from the deal, Khamenei’s long-standing view—that the United States is not trustworthy and concessions invite further demands—was again reinforced in Tehran.

If the conflict is existential, compromise under duress becomes existential betrayal. This explains the pattern that has puzzled observers for two decades: Tehran negotiates, signs agreements, absorbs pressure, but refuses permanent capitulation. Even the 2015 nuclear deal was narrated as “heroic flexibility,” not retreat. Flexibility was permitted. Surrender was not. The difference is ontological.

This is why military deterrence logic fails. From a cost-benefit perspective, the nuclear program has brought enormous economic pain and invited military threat since its revelation in 2002. But identity commitments are not easily traded for material relief. In Khamenei’s discourse, enrichment is repeatedly framed as a matter of dignity, independence, and refusal to kneel.

It would be analytically sloppy to conclude that agreement with Iran is impossible under any circumstances. Sanctions have damaged its economy. Military strikes have exposed vulnerabilities. Domestic unrest has shaken confidence. And Iranian history contains episodes of pragmatic adjustment. Given that Iran’s nuclear project has generated instability rather than stability and that the axis of resistance has nearly unraveled, these pressures may well push Khamenei toward a feasible flexibility.

Yet it would be equally misguided to assume that escalating pressure will yield unconditional surrender because the object under dispute is not simply uranium. It is the ayatollah’s fundamental identity. To drink the chalice would not be a policy shift; it would be a negation of self. And so, the chalice will remain untouched.

In the end, Washington’s dilemma is not merely geopolitical. It is also psychological. That is why calls for unconditional surrender misunderstand the psychological terrain. The United States is confronting a leader who perceives compromise under coercion as existential defeat, and who may accept personal risk, even death, as preferable to symbolic capitulation.