When you have spy level investigations, the bias towards implicating a state actor over organised crime is most prevalent. Indeed in this case, they felt it was most likely without quantifying why they thought that was so. A trend we see play out many times. Then you add the government secrecy and just get the answer without any workings out. Hence it is right to question the answer. More so when it is often worked most gray by terms like "most likely". Then you always get some random official making a more solidified claim without any further evidence at all making a more solid case "“It was pretty clear that the Israelis were responsible,” said a former senior intelligence official." and the press will just roll with that.

Did they do due diligence - yes they will say as they asked somebody else. Do we have definitive proof - nope. But this is a pattern that plays out many a time.

It also ignores how such devices could of been used to spy upon others, found and then planted to cause embarrassment at a higher level - That's spycraft for you, happens.

But the take away question I have is - why do reporters always fallback upon EX-staff members for quotes, how many did they ask until they got the answer they wanted? That is one area that totally erodes most credibility to the discerning eye and yet is often used by the media to support some direction or another.