A US intelligence assessment has concluded that even a major American-led military assault on Iran would be unlikely to overthrow the country’s leadership, highlighting the resilience of Tehran’s political system and the limits of military force in forcing regime change.

An intelligence report conducted by the US National Intelligence Council found that even a “large-scale” American-led assault on Iran was unlikely to topple the country’s government, The Washington Post reported on March 7, citing people familiar with the classified analysis.

The assessment reflects the consensus view of the US intelligence community and was prepared to inform policymakers as tensions with Tehran continue to shape security debates in Washington and the Middle East. The National Intelligence Council, which synthesises analysis across multiple US intelligence agencies, evaluates strategic risks and potential outcomes of military scenarios.

According to the report described by The Washington Post, US analysts believe Iran’s political structure, security services and ideological institutions would probably withstand even significant external military pressure. The analysis suggests that strikes on nuclear facilities, military bases or other strategic targets would be unlikely by themselves to trigger the collapse of the Islamic Republic.

Iran’s leadership has spent decades building layered security and political systems designed to survive external threats. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, alongside the regular military and extensive internal security networks, plays a central role in protecting the state and suppressing domestic unrest.

US intelligence officials also reportedly assessed that military action could instead rally nationalist sentiment around the government, complicating efforts to weaken the regime from within. Iranian authorities have historically used external pressure and confrontation with the US to reinforce domestic support and justify tighter political control.

The report comes as Washington continues to weigh policy options regarding Iran’s nuclear programme and regional activities. Analysts and former officials have long argued that air strikes or other limited military actions would at best delay nuclear development while carrying the risk of wider regional escalation.

US officials have repeatedly stated that all options remain on the table regarding Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but intelligence assessments such as the one described by The Washington Post highlight the difficulty of achieving political change in Tehran through military means alone.