One of the most significant and yet challenging issues in the field of international arbitration is the issue of recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. The importance of this issue stems from the fact that the ultimate goal of the arbitration process is not simply to issue an award, but to issue an award that can be recognized and effectively enforced within the jurisdiction of the country in which the award is to be enforced. And in this regard, national courts play a dual and vital role: on the one hand, as guardians of domestic rule of law and public order and, on the other hand, as enforcers of the state's international obligations, in particular those enshrined in the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. The judgment rendered by the 40th Branch of the Tehran General Civil Court serves as a compelling example of the difficulties faced by the judiciary in this field. The honorable court correctly ruled to recognize and enforce a foreign arbitral award. However, its reasoning demonstrates a profound confusion in distinguishing between the legal systems governing arbitration. Using an analytical-critical approach and based on a case study of the aforementioned judgment, this article examines the shortcomings of the court's argument and their impact on the predictability of the Iranian arbitration system.