---

Many academics, worldwide have considered Khatami’s Dialogue of Civilizations as a pow-erful rhetoric and antithesis of the so-called ‘Clash of Civilization’ theory. This article, how-ever, tries to show the originality and depth of Khatami’s vision, framed against the back-ground of ‘the end of history’ and clash of civilization’ theories, political frames used by po-litical actors in the post cold war international order. Citing quotations from the number of speeches delivered by Khatami’s author tries to identify the notions behind the dialogue, which according to him has been influenced by many philosophical and religious trends, and which more of less justifies Iranian foreign policy and protect national interest rather a genu-ine vision to construct peaceful and just world. Further, the present article raises many ques-tions regarding the intellectual indifference and liberal west as non receptive to the dialogue, and thus, specially in the wake of recent unease around the globe.

---

After the collapse of bipolar system in the world, different views and theories expressed by the scholars and thinkers about the future of the world and international system. One of them is the theory of “ The Clash of Civilizations” which was propounded in 1993 by the Samuel Huntington, the director of J.M.Olin Institute for Strategic Studies in Harvard Uni-versity. This theory caused some anxieties in the world. In reaction to this theory, Mohammad Khatami, president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, proposed “Dialogue Among Civilizations” as a paradigm in the international relations which was accepted by the 53rd General Assembly of the United Nations on 3 September 1998 and approved a resolution for the purpose of promoting dialogue among cultures and civiliza-tions, and called the year 2001 as “the Year of Dialogue Among Civilizations”. This article based on both mentioned theories, refers to the role of dialogue approach in creation of peaceful relations between nations and states.

---

Modern Europe witnessed a historical simultaneity as  the result of which , not only Europe ruptured from its  own past, rather a forced  attachment to the non- European's future was also forged. This  historical "development" has been narrated in the "colonial discourse". On the other hand, for the non–Europeans, however, a different historical simultaneity took place.  Hence; the colonized/non -Europeans found themselves forcefully ruptured not only from their own selfhood, but also thrown in an imposed 'state of nature' dispossessed of their identity. This historical experience has been narrated in the "post-colonial discourse". The current paper is an attempt to host a 'meeting' between the colonial and the post-colonial discourses.