Daily Telegraph is pretty sure about this. What about the thoughts of some experts?

Question:

Do you think it could be true and would you say it is useful (any example from history when that kind of operation was useful)? Do you think it could undermine the regime in Tehran or no matter if it is true or false information it would be probably vaste of time and money?

Answers:

Jennifer Kibbe, assistant professor of government at Franklin & Marshall College

Yes, I do think it's quite feasible that the reports are true (although I do not know). Covert operations of this type could be useful, as long as you keep in mind their limitations. In other words, they could certainly delay Iran's progress on the nuclear front but they're not going to end the program or change Iran's mind about pursuing it. As one source in the Telegraph article mentioned, they could be an effective delaying tactic while you pursue a diplomatic solution but, on the other hand, covert operations (particularly violent ones such as assassinations) run the risk of upsetting the Iranian regime and making them more recalcitrant in negotiations. And, yes, whether true or false, if Tehran gets worried enough about the possibility of such programs, they will spend time, energy and money trying to combat them which will detract from other issues they might want to focus on.

Michael Smith writes on defence and security issues for the Sunday Times and New Statesman.

I don’t think that Israel has any choice but to mount covert operations against the Iranian nuclear programme. It has no hope of getting US support for a military attack, even Bush declined to do that in the end. The Iranian nuclear programme is not centred in one place and key installations are deep underground. The Iranian air defence system is at any event far superior to that the Israelis faced when they took down the Osirak reactor in Iraq. The report is by a credible journalist and is at any event in itself credible. Assassinations of key people in programmes is not new to the Israelis of course, they murdered Gerald Bull to prevent the Iraqi supergun project. How effective it can be with Iran is another matter. The best way forward is via negotiation and if covert measures are to be used they would be better focused on encouraging a more moderate regime.

James Denselow, doctoral candidate at School of Social Science and Public Policy, King's College London

This history of conflicts between powerful states has shown that overt and all out fighting is often the last resort of resolving disputes. Iran and the US/Israel have been fighting a variety of proxy conflicts that have increased in tempo over the last few years. While Iran provides financial, logistical and weaponry support to enemies of the US/Israel across the Middle East (Hizbullah in Lebanon, Hamas in Israel/OPT and various militias in Iraq) - the US/Israeli response has been to engage in similar covert operations both inside Iran (especially the southern border regions with Iraq) and against Iranian allies. I would suggest that these activities constitute retaliation by the US and Israel against Iranian policies. There is little evidence that they are of sufficient size and strategic importance to be able to bring about 'regime change'. Clearly the issue of Iran's acquiring a nuclear weapon and US/Israeli efforts to prevent this are the crux of the matter. Any large-scale and overt attack against Iran's nuclear facilities would likely draw a response by Iran (directly and via it's allies) across the region. As the clock continues to count down to Iran acquiring a nuclear capacity this remains the key issue - what steps are the US/Israel willing to take to prevent that from happening.