Yesterday's L.A. Times (emphasis mine):
Analysts predict that a debate will unfold within Iran's elite over whether the Islamic Republic or the United States should make the first move in any post-Bush dialogue.
Some point to the injustices allegedly committed by the U.S. against Iran, such as the 1953 overthrow of the democratically elected government, as reasons why America should make the first move.
Uh, I think at this point it's safe to say that U.S. involvement in the overthrow of the elected Iranian government in 1953 is more than an "allegation." In fact, all of two weeks ago, the L.A. Times referenced this: "Over the years, Kissinger advocated a friendlier line on Iran and the shah, who had been brought back to power by a U.S.-engineered coup in 1953."
Do these facts become allegations because it's the Iranians who are bringing them up?