That, in particular, is really stupid.
You almost always need to leave your opponent a way out. "Unconditional surrender" is an outcome on the table in something like a total, declared war. Demanding it of a regime that still has some fighting capability? So, let's see.....I'm current Iranian leadership. My choices are 1) "unconditional surrender," after which I will be fucking executed, or 2) unleash as much hell as possible, hoping to be thorny and costly enough to force some negotiated peace that allows me to survive and maybe even stay in power. The odds aren't great for #2....but it still beats the FUCK outta option #1.
A demand of complete and total cessation of all nuclear development and activities, including destruction of all facilities and a handover of all enriched uranium to a third party? Extreme, but a viable path. But that's not what we get. Because none of what is being demanded is actually strategic. Every bit of it is utterly impulsive, and loaded with words he thinks sound powerful and cool.