Nervous Doha residents stock up on groceries earlier this month. Credit:Twitter: @shalome05 Trying to pick the difference between the two nations is a fool's game. They're just different. It seems, however, they're not actually different enough to coexist happily together. No one's exactly sure what happened in the private meetings between Trump and the Saudis, but three coincidences are undeniable. First, the US President signed a $110 billion arms deal – the biggest in history – with the kingdom. Second, he was collared. To be more precise, Trump was awarded the Collar of Abdulaziz al Saud for "services to Saudi Arabia", a country that, during last year's US election campaign, he had insisted wanted "women as slaves and to kill gays". This alone makes you realise what a difference a couple of months (and a bit of quiet, financial reflection) can make. The third factor was the sudden eruption of the crisis in the Arabian Gulf after Trump's Riyadh meeting with the Saudi leadership. The ostensible cause of the outbreak of hostilities was Qatar's deal in April to ransom 26 hostages (including some of the royal family) for a cool $700 million. Obviously sports-loving individuals, the group was kidnapped nearly 1½ years ago while indulging in a spot of falconry in southern Iraq. As one does. The Saudis were apparently outraged, not so much at the idea of ransoming people but at the amount involved. And that's where the issue simmered until Trump's visit. The same visit during which he became "besties" with the Saudis.

Qatar's ruler, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani, with Donald Trump in Saudi Arabia last month. Credit:Evan Vucci Then, earlier this month, Saudi Arabia and five other states abruptly broke off relations with Qatar. Bizarrely, however, although one list of "demands" was later delivered to Kuwaiti negotiators in Riyadh, the Saudis haven't managed to explain exactly what they hope to achieve with their actions. And it's this that's resulted in the serious diplomatic crisis. It's a dispute with no apparent means of resolution; a quarrel simply for the sake of it. This wouldn't matter if it was just a spat between a couple of irrelevant countries, but that's not the case. Qatar enjoys the highest per capita income in the world; Qatar Airways links 150 international destinations (including, from next year, Canberra); and the country will host the FIFA World Cup in 2022. Its capital, Doha, is an international city. It's also a crucial node in the so-called "fight against terrorism", hosting US command facilities and attached Australian forces. This is, in other words, a world city, one that's considerably more integrated into the global economy than Riyadh. Qatar, which Trump denounced for supporting terrorism, hosts a US military air base with about 11,000 personnel. Credit:Boeing As a result, the sanctions the Arab world imposed on Qatar will inevitably have deleterious outcomes, but there are bizarre inconsistencies as well. Qatar Airways, for example, was forced to reroute flights and similar restrictions were put in place for shipping. Natural gas, however, continues to flow from Qatar through to the United Arab Emirates, even though it joined in Saudi Arabia's condemnation.

It's difficult to avoid the conclusion that this is all about who's boss in the region. The Saudis always assumed it was them. Qatar, however, shows that, just because things worked one way in the past, they don't need to stay that way forever. The smaller country is diversifying, although it's important to realise that everything is relative in the gulf. None of this needs to lead to conflict. What's missing today, however, is any sense of a guiding hand from the US. A couple of weeks ago, just after he talked to the Saudis, Trump tweeted his condemnation of Qatar. Despite this, next week will see the commencement of a significant naval exercise involving Qatar and the US. Which of these signals is real? The enduring commitment represented by military interaction or the transient puffery of a president on a mobile phone? Who decides if America will go to war? Will it be the president or the most recent person to speak to him? Where are the foreign-policy grown-ups? Loading

The current situation is dangerous. The only thing more dangerous is the possibility Trump might actually seize the levers of power. Nicholas Stuart is a Canberra writer.