OPINION:
When the United States swears in a new president, the media often makes bold predictions about what will be accomplished in the first 100 days. The momentum afforded by a national election, the excitement of a new president and the political capital he carries with him all set expectations high for the sprint out of the starting block.
In fall 2025, Iraq held elections, but it wasn’t until five months after the votes were counted that Iraq’s parliament selected a new president, who in turn appointed a prime minister-designate, Ali al-Zaidi. Mr. al-Zaidi was then confirmed by a vote in parliament. The process took about 180 days. After the long process, the sense of urgency was palpable.
Many would tell you that in Iraq, 100 days are little more than a fleeting moment in the life of a state exhausted by crises, burdened by years of disputes, calculations and anxiety. It appears, however, they are enough for Iraqis and the world to realize that something has begun to seriously change in an early test of the direction of the state: Would Baghdad continue managing its crises, or would it begin managing its future?
In foreign policy, Mr. al-Zaidi did not wait long to place Iraq at the heart of the international equation. Washington was his first foreign destination, at the invitation of President Trump, in a visit that carried more than one message.
Iraq did not travel to the United States merely seeking security support; it went to present a new partnership centered on the economy, investment, energy and infrastructure, and on building a relationship based not on managing crises, but on creating shared interests.
This is where the significance of the visit lies: Iraq is moving away from being seen as a state that attracts attention mainly when a crisis erupts, and toward being viewed as a country offering opportunities for investment and partnership.
The road to statehood does not run through the economy alone, of course. Domestically, Mr. al-Zaidi opened one of the most sensitive investigations: integrity and the recovery of public funds. Many governments around the world trumpet promises of addressing corruption. The new Iraqi government pushed its Integrity Commission to step up scrutiny and investigations into government contracts.
Many Iraqis were skeptical. They have heard this song before. Then came the “Dawn Crackdown” operation, sending a clear political and legal message: there is no immunity for anyone who reaches into the pockets of the Iraqi people. As we say in the United States, no one is above the law. At least 210 officials, lawmakers, employees and business figures were detained between June 28 and Aug. 9, according to Shafaq News, an Iraqi news agency.
In the last few days, headlines have shouted “Iraq seizes another $26M in cash and 60 kg of gold” and “Iraqi Electricity Official Arrested with Millions in Cash.” It is becoming clear that the crackdown isn’t merely a PR stunt. It’s real. Mr. al-Zaidi also directed the creation of a special account into which recovered funds from corruption cases would be deposited and used for public good.
The prime minister’s new government’s biggest challenge, however, may be the issue of weapons.
In a nation where militias arm their members with military-grade hardware, it is well established that bringing weapons under state control is not an administrative decision that can be implemented through a signature or a statement, but a long struggle involving balances of power that have developed over many years.
As one of its first 100-day initiatives, the al-Zaidi government chose to confront the trouble directly and declare that the state must have sole authority over security decisions.
Mr. al-Zaidi stated clearly that the Iraqi forces are capable of protecting the country and that there would be no need for armed factions or foreign forces after Sept. 30, stressing that the government was moving forward with taking control of weapons and placing them under state authority.
It is here that the three major goals intersect. An Iraq that wants foreign investment needs security. An Iraq that wants to recover its money needs a strong judiciary and strong institutions. And an Iraq that wants balanced partnerships with the world needs, above all, a sovereign decision that no other party can contest.
One hundred days may be too early to declare that Iraq has changed, but it is not too early to say that the direction of Iraq has begun to change. There is a world of difference between a government that spends its time putting out fires and one that is simultaneously trying to rebuild the house.
Perhaps the most striking aspect of these 100 days is that Mr. al-Zaidi did not treat them as a short period for testing intentions, but rather as an opportunity to change the rules of the game. Foreign policy, the fight against corruption, and bringing weapons under state control are not separate issues; at their core, they are one battle whose title is restoring the state’s authority, prestige, and capacity to act.
The results may not yet be complete, and certainly haven’t yet been translated into realities that citizens can feel in their daily lives.
The job isn’t done 100 days into the new government, but the track has been set. Iraq is speaking with Washington as a state seeking partnership and mutual interests, opening its doors to investment rather than limiting itself to requests for assistance, placing integrity institutions in confrontation with corruption, and making clear on the weapons issue that security decisions cannot be divided among multiple centers of power.
That is why the right question when assessing the first 100 days of the al-Zaidi government should be: Has Iraq moved closer to becoming the state its people want? The final answer will take more time. But 100 days have been enough to provide a first unmistakable sign: Iraq is no longer standing in the same place. Iraqis are beginning to see their state take the initiative from within.
The first 100 days of the al-Zaidi government might best be described as a declaration of a new beginning: an Iraq that wants to be the master of its own decisions, the guardian of its security, the custodian of its public wealth, and a partner whose interests and position command the respect of others.
Follow the author
Please read our comment policy before commenting.