This article examines the gap between the contractual validity of international commercial mediated settlement agreements and their direct compulsory enforcement under Iranian law. It asks which existing legal routes can support such agreements and what a national statute or possible accession to the Singapore Convention on Mediation would require. Using doctrinal analysis and focused comparison, it examines the Convention, its official treaty status, Iranian civil and civil-procedure laws, and the implementing frameworks of Singapore and Japan. The findings indicate that, depending on its terms and the parties’ intent, a mediated settlement may constitute a ṣulḥ (settlement contract) or another binding contract under Iranian law. However, contractual validity alone does not make an ordinary private document directly enforceable without judicial proceedings. Contractual litigation, court settlement, eligible notarial instruments, and consent awards rendered in valid arbitration are distinct routes, each with separate requirements and limitations. The Convention establishes rules on scope, proof that an agreement resulted from mediation, and grounds for refusing relief; it also distinguishes an application for relief from reliance on an agreement to show that a dispute has already been resolved. According to the United Nations Treaty Collection status shown as at 12 October 2026, Iran has signed the Convention, but no ratification or accession is recorded. The Convention is therefore not a direct legal basis for enforcement in Iran at the research cut-off date. The article’s contribution is a six-part framework for evaluating domestic routes: substantive legal basis, evidence, competent forum, enforceable instrument, grounds for refusal, and compulsory execution mechanism. It recommends a national commercial mediation law clarifying evidence, jurisdiction, public policy, third-party rights, and enforcement procedure, while treating accession as a separate decision coordinated with domestic reform.