Just the other day I was thinking about how remarkable it is that nation states that don’t like each other often manage to go on playing soccer matches.

I was thinking in particular of the Asian Champions League, which this year has three groups that include clubs from both Saudi Arabia and Iran — which are political and military regional rivals and, usually, top-of-the-list “don’t-invitems” when it comes to social activities.

Turns out, I got ahead of myself.

The whole of the Middle East is getting more fraught almost by the hour, now that Yemen is spiraling towards Syria’s level as a focal point of chaos, death and destruction.

Somewhere near the bottom of almost every conflict in the region we find Saudi Arabia on one side, and Iran on the other.

As recently as last year, the representatives from each country, nonetheless, traveled to play in each other’s country.

The notion that teams from Iran could cross the Persian Gulf to play in Saudi or that the latter could cross the Arabian Gulf (they can’t agree on a name) as late as April 2015 … was a bit surprising and a bit heartening.

Yes, the matchups could be heated and a focal points of lots of less-than-healthy rivalry, but they went on. Persepolis, Naft Tehran, Foolad and Tractor Sazi all traveled to Saudi; Al Nassr, Al Shabab, Al Hilal and Al Ahli all traveled to Iran.

Some of the crowds were enormous, too, with 100,000 at Tehran’s Azadi Stadium to see Nassr play home-team Sepahan and Tractor Sazi playing in front of 45,482 at Ahli’s home in Jeddah.

Well, those trips are not going to happen for the 2016 version of the tournament.

The Asian Football Confederation this week instructed the Iranian and Saudi teams to find neutral venues for their upcoming games, as relations between the countries have further degenerated.

As Agence France-Presse reported: “Matches between Saudi and Iranian clubs were rescheduled for the end of the group stage [in April and May] in the hope that relations would improve after a flare-up over Riyadh’s execution of a Shiite cleric in January. Saudi Arabia severed all links with Tehran after crowds attacked its diplomatic missions in Iran over the cleric’s death.”

Continuing the story with an AFC’s statement sent to each country:

“It is most unfortunate for the AFC to learn that at the time of writing, the Saudi Arabian government has yet to lift the travel restrictions on their nationals, which prohibit travel to IR Iran. Furthermore, there has been no significant development in the relationship between the two countries concerned.”

The AFC is conceding the hurdles (and risks) involved with Saudi and Iranian teams traveling to the other’s country … are too significant too big.

Where they go now, is not clear, and the AFC is awaiting word from the various teams involved.

The region pretty much splits neatly into “strong Saudi allies” and “strong Iran allies”.

They may have to leave the region entirely, to play these Champions League matches. They also may have to consider playing in empty stadiums, even then.

Where do you go? In the past, neutral-site games have tended to be in Dubai or Qatar, but the UAE and Qatar are allies of Saudi Arabia, and that may spook the Iranian sides. Does semi-neutral Jordan really want a half-dozen Saudi-v-Iran club matches on its soil?

North Africa would seem to be out. Maybe Sri Lanka? Or going back the other direction and trying, perhaps, Cyprus? Malta? But those latter two are outside the AFC.

Ah, I have it. Oman.

Oman is not involved in any of the wars and proxy wars going on … and despite being an Arab state Oman has good relations with Iran. They could play in Muscat. (Though they may still want to consider an empty stadium.)

The Saudi and Iranian teams have until March 25 to let the AFC know where they are willing to play.

Should be interesting … and a little sad. Soccer can’t bridge all disputes, after all.