THE present crisis in northern rag was "predictable", Mr Qiradaghi, a leading commentator, told The Irish Times. The two factions were "repeatedly warned their conflict would bring in Saddam Hassein or Iran or both."

According to Mr Hoshyr Zubari, spokesman of the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP), Baghdad's involvement was precipitated by "the Iranian intervention on behalf of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan".

He claimed that Iranian troops had been "engaged in direct combat along with PUK forces since August 17th" and that the KDP had made "repeated appeals to Western coalition forces, to Western governments, to deter the Iranians... there was no response." Thus, on August 21st the leader of the KDP, Mr Massoud Barazani, wrote to President Saddam Hussein of Iraq, asking him to intervene on the side of the KDP.

Then on Friday night, "thousands of Iranian Revolutionary Guards penetrated northern Iraq to a depth of 40 kilometres to assist in the PUK campaign against the KDP. The KDP, he stated, regarded this as a "threat to the very existence" of the party and its followers. The combined Iranian-PUK offensive "accelerated" the Iraqi involvement, Mr Zubari said, asserting that the Iranian presence had been confirmed by all the concerned parties".

Although Baghdad has apparently massed three divisions of well equipped Republican Guards, numbering 30-40,000 troops, in the Irbil area, foreign observers in the city report that only about 15,000 have moved into the city along with units of the KDP militia. And a KDP spokesman in Irbil said yesterday that about half the Iraqi troops had already withdrawn back across the 36th parallel, which forms the southern edge of the Western protected exclusion zone.

The US confirmed that Iraq had moved out some troops overnight but Washington was doubtful that Baghdad would withdraw all its forces "soon", as promised. On Saturday the government announced it would withdraw because it had "not taken the decision to reassert its sovereignty" in the Kurdish area.

Mr Zubari admitted it had been difficult for the KDP to call upon Baghdad but said Iraqi intervention had been dictated by "the hard reality of the situation." The reality being that the KDP was in danger of being defeated by the PUK and its ally, Iran. And that the KDP was prepared to sap with Saddam rather than risk defeat.

Yesterday the Kurds and their sponsors seem to have pulled back from the brink of all out civil war in the "safe haven". There was some sporadic shelling of PUK positions around the party's main stronghold of Suleimaniyya, south east of Irbil, but otherwise the Kurdish enclave was quiet.

Aware of the sensitivities of the Kurds' Western protecting powers to direct intervention by Tehran or Baghdad in the region, Iranian Revolutionary Guards and Iraqi Republican Guards seemed to be lying low. A discreet retreat by both guards formations could forestall Western military intervention.

WHY did Tehran risk Western retaliation by giving military support to Mr Jalal Talabani's PUK in its offensive against the KDP? Presumably Iran's leaders believed the Western powers had lost interest in the Kurds, as very little has been done in the past year (since the Drogheda and Dublin meetings where they reached an agreement but refused to sign) to force the PUK and KDP to settle their differences.

Tehran was censured for sending its forces into northern Iraq last month to attack a base of dissident Iranian Kurds but no action was taken. And the only action the US took after the PUK launched its Iranian supported mid August offensive was to call the leaders of the two factions to London for ceasefire talks. Perhaps Iran felt it had nothing to lose and everything to gain if the PUK were to rout the KDP and secure control over the whole of the "safe haven".

Once Iran became involved with one Kurdish faction, Iraq could not but back the other. Iraq did not fight in eight year war with Iran - because Tehran had attempted to meddle in Iraq's internal affairs - in order to permit the PUK to bring - Iran into the Kurdish haven by the back door of Suleimaniyya.

Baghdad also believed its intervention would be seen as "legitimate" by its Gulf neighbours, who have had to fend off Iranian attempts to intervene in their internal affairs. Baghdad would also have calculated that it would be difficult for the US to reconstruct the 1991 Gulf War coalition in order to mount a military strike against Iraq, particularly since its forces did not cross any international boundary but simply moved into the southern edge of the exclusion zone within Iraq.

The White House Chief of Staff, Mr Leon Panetta, said yesterday that Iraq would have to take the "consequences of its action but neither the White House nor the Pentagon said that military action was imminent

There is little expectation that the US would mount a ground operation to drive Iraq out of the area. But the US may resort to punitive air strikes against Iraqi military targets. Analysts believe there is no likelihood of Iran-Iraq involvement in the interKurd conflict spreading to neighbour ing countries.

The latest developments may make it impossible for outsiders to imposed a settlement of the 20 year conflict between the PUK and the KDP. The PUK chief, Mr Jalal Talabani, said yesterday the two factions were now irreconcilable". But this has, in fact, been the case for a long time. The chieftains have not met for a year and during that year the division between the KDP and PUK controlled areas has deepened, with population exchanges taking place between the two, exacerbating popular resentments.

This means that the conflict will go spluttering on. And because the Iraqi National Congress (INC), the umbrella grouping of the Iraqi opposition, has taken the side of the PUK, Western hopes of building an anti Saddam base for the opposition in northern Iraq have been dashed.

Money, once again, seems to have caused the present conflict. This time the cash in question is the $600 million a year the Kurds expect as their share from Iraq's $4 billion oil for food deal worked out with the UN in May and due for implementation this month.

The PUK clearly launched its offensive with the intention of defeating the KDP in order to secure control of the revenues. In addition to self preservation the KDP's motive for allying itself with Baghdad was to secure preferential treatment once the revenues are dispersed.

Unfortunately for ordinary Kurds - as well as the Iraqi people - the US may use its influence at the UN to postpone implementation of the desperately desired and urgently needed oil for food package as political punishment for their ever warring chieftains' follies.