ON Monday, the Washington Times banner headline was "US ambassador to Ireland likely to be recalled seen duped by Sinn Fein".

On Tuesday, the same newspaper had the headline: "US denies it plans to recall Smith from Ireland".

The first report was credited to the London Daily Telegraph. It was a follow up to the report in the London Times last Saturday by its Diplomatic Editor which bluntly stated that President Clinton was "about to undertake a decisive shift in his policy on Northern Ireland".

Hem would be "giving far more emphasis to backing the British and Irish governments and decisively slapping down Jean Kennedy Smith, the Irish ambassador in Dublin. She is likely to be recalled within the next few months."

The Telegraph report two days later was an expanded version of this with added details about the ambassador's internal clashes with the State Department over Northern" Ireland policy.

The White House and State Department spokesmen sprang to the ambassador's defence and rubbished the London reports. She retained the "full and unequivocal support of the President and Secretary of State Albright". Nicholas Burns of the State Department said at his briefing: "That newspaper was wrong, dead wrong on the facts". The White House spokesman on foreign policy, David Johnson, said suggestions that the US was "considering sharp changes in our policy are also false".

The next day, Ms Albright was questioned at a hearing of the House International Affairs Committee about the newspaper reports. She told Congressman Peter King that they were totally untrue.

Incidentally, the heavyweight New York Times and Washington Post ignored the whole thing. The relatively small circulation Washington Times is conservative, strongly anti Clinton and uses the London Telegraph for much of its Irish coverage.

So is it all a "storm in a teacup" as a diplomat said here? Perhaps. The attempts to depict Ms Kennedy Smith as at loggerheads with President Clinton over Northern Ireland spring more from an anti Kennedy family bias in some of the British right wing press than from the facts.

But she also has enemies in the State Department, which feels miffed at the way she has a direct line to the White House on Northern Ireland as shown by the battle over granting the first US visa to Sinn Fein president Gerry Adams before the IRA ceasefire.

The US embassy in London, under former Admiral William Crowe, soon to retire, has also been put out by Ms Kennedy Smith's strong personal involvement in Northern Ireland and her pushing for the Adams visa against State Department and British government objections.

THE source of the London Times report of last Saturday which started the latest incident is claimed to be a US embassy briefing in connection with the impending visit of Ms Albright to Britain. But this claim may be an attempt to cover up the real sources, which could be nearer Whitehall.

The London reports also stated that Ms Albright had asked for a meeting with the Northern Ireland Secretary, Sir Patrick Mayhew, and this was also seen to indicate a "tougher" stance by the US towards Sinn Fein's efforts to join the all party talks. But it was apparently the British side which asked for the meeting, which now cannot be fitted in because of "scheduling" problems.

While the anti Kennedy line is predictable, of more potential significance is the claim that "responsibility for American policy on Ireland is likely to be transferred from the National Security Council (NSC) to the State Department". And that Ms Albright "is said to believe the policy of aligning the United States with Mr Adams and John Hume, leader of the Catholic SDLP, has failed".

President Clinton, according to "the Telegraph, was "bitterly disappointed and angered by the ending of the IRA ceasefire a year ago and now intends to delegate negotiations on Northern Ireland to Ms Albright".

The NSC is of course the body which advises the President on security and foreign policy and is part of the White House. Northern Ireland policy there was until recently handled by the chief adviser, Tony Lake, and his deputy, Nancy Soderberg, who battled with the State Department over the Adams visa and won.

Now Mr Lake and Ms Soderberg are gone so it is pertinent to ask if the succession at the State Department to Warren Christopher, who did not get involved in Northern Ireland, by the more aggressive Madeleine Albright, could mean a policy shift.

Her personal views on Northern Ireland remain a mystery so far. But regardless of her views, she is likely to be more activist than Mr Christopher on a policy which remains dear to Mr Clinton, especially since his memorable trip to Belfast, Derry and Dublin.

So will some of the Northern Ireland dossier shift back to the State Department?

All the signs so far are that there will be little, if any shift from the NSC under its new adviser, Sandy Berger, and his deputy, Jim Steinberg. Mr Berger and Ms Albright are friends and go back a long way in Democratic politics and support for Clinton's campaigns. A personal rivalry seems unlikely to develop.

THE Irish Embassy here believes there will be no significant shift of the Northern Ireland dossier from NSC to State, while not excluding a greater personal interest by Ms Albright in policy making. Congress members, are also getting the same message.

Yet the Clinton policy on Northern Ireland has been stalled since the ending of the IRA ceasefire and has been largely reactive - deploring bombings, urging a resumption of the ceasefire, praising loyalist paramilitaries and wishing George Mitchell well.

Fresh thinking is obviously needed in co operation with London and Dublin and not a bureaucratic battle over who does what. The Adams visa helped to get the ceasefire, It will need more than another US visa to get it back.