Because i'm not sure what they are.
If we knew who was responsible, we could talk about motive and implications of that, but we don't.
I guess we could consider the broader picture of if this represents an increase on spying on civil society leaders (a bad thing, certainly), but without a base rate to compare with, it seems like conjecture on this is pointless. Does this represent something new, or is it just a continuation of the age old practise of keeping an eye on your enemies? I have no idea. I suppose there is something to be said that hacking a modern cell phone is much more invasive than watergate-style survelience, but that is not exactly a new observation.
So what are the political implications we should be talking about?