In large-scale civil and infrastructure projects, a host of technical, financial, and contractual complexities often give rise to legal disputes. The resolution of these disputes through traditional arbitration institutions frequently leads to lengthy and costly processes. This phenomenon, referred to in legal literature as "judicialization," diminishes the effectiveness of arbitration as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism.The present study, employing a foresight approach and using documentary and library research methods, provides a critical analysis of the current state of Iran's arbitration system for civil and infrastructure projects. The key challenges identified include the lack of interdisciplinary expertise among arbitrators, slow and traditional procedural practices, and legal limitations on the use of arbitration.While leading global arbitration systems in the construction industry are adopting a modern, forward-looking approach focused on dispute prevention through new procedural models and tools, Iran's system continues to operate on a traditional post-dispute resolution model.This research endeavors to forecast future developments and formulate a new paradigm that transforms arbitration in Iranian civil and infrastructure projects from a mere adjudicating body into a strategic risk management mechanism. This novel paradigm is founded on three core principles: preventive arbitration, arbitrator specialization, and the application of new technologies. Ultimately, this study offers new strategies, based on a foresight-driven perspective, to achieve an efficient legal system for arbitration in Iran's civil and infrastructure projects.