The UN mediated Syrian peace talks in Geneva were abruptly suspended; it was stated that there was more work to be done by the big powers sponsoring the talks between the Syrian sides. The latest, inconclusive Syrian peace talks were attended by representatives of the Syrian government, the Saudi-backed coalition and the high negotiation committee but it failed to reach any conclusion. Now another so-called effort for restoring order in Syria is taking shape: the Gulf States led by Saudi Arabia are sending ground troops. The Saudis claim that they are fully prepared for a land intervention in Syria and they have even started moving ground forces and fighter aircraft to Turkey’s Incirlik base. The Saudi-led Gulf coalition says that their declared target is Islamic State (IS) but the presence of troops from the Gulf states will be taken as a hostile act by the Assad regime and its backers. This proposed ground forces deployment could put the announcement of a potential ceasefire in Syria into jeopardy. The Saudi move increases the possibility of a massive escalation in the Syrian conflict. Already Russia has issued a stark warning of the potential consequences. Russian Prime Minister (PM) Dmitry Medvedev said, “The Americans and our Arab partners must think well: do they want a permanent war?” The Saudi plan to send ground troops into Syria appears to be just a ruse. But this is precisely the kind of reckless sabre rattling that could ignite an all-out war, one that could embroil the US and Russia. The House of Saud is not pleased with US-led diplomatic efforts in Syria. US Secretary of State John Kerry’s bustling to organise the Geneva negotiations supposedly to find a peace settlement to the five-year conflict is seen by the Saudis as giving too many concessions to the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad and his foreign allies, Russia, Iran and Lebanon’s Hezbollah. This proposed ground invasion in Syria may also be aimed at pressuring the Syrian government and Russia to accommodate ceasefire demands, which may provide breathing space for the Arab states’ backed rebel forces. There is a widely held perception that troops from the Sunni Gulf states will provide support for Syria’s Sunni rebels who are losing ground and this will bring them into conflict with the Shias: Iranian volunteers and Lebanese Hezbollah fighters backing the regime of Bashar al-Assad. It is obvious that the Gulf states are responding directly to the collapse of their proxy forces across the country; their most recent threats to further escalate the conflict in Syria are tenuously predicated on “fighting IS”. It is clear then that this sudden interest in escalation has nothing to do with IS and more to do with rescuing the Saudi allied rebel forces before they are entirely eradicated and/or expelled from the country. This ground invasion by the coalition of the Gulf states will be, in all reality, aimed at challenging and rolling back Syrian and Russian gains on the battlefield or, at the very least, providing an unassailable sanctuary within Syrian territory to Gulf-backed rebels. But the risks of a conventional military intervention, given the complex conflict dynamics in Syria, should be taken into account by the Saudis before marching into Syria with ground forces. The first issue with starting a ground operation in Syria will be how to arrange air support for the operation. Without air support, it is impossible to launch a ground operation that could last months. Close air support is essential to protect ground forces with firepower, reconnaissance and surveillance. The issue then becomes of whether Russia, which has declared a de facto no-fly zone over northern Syria, will allow any Saudi planes and helicopters to enter Syrian airspace. Another important question will be what the Gulf invasion forces’ attitude towards Kurdish militias should be as they are coordinating with the Russians and are hostile towards Turkey. The most important aspect, which should also be seriously considered, is the exit strategy. Neglecting an exit strategy usually comes with heavy economic and political costs. There is a very remote possibility that intervention by a ground force will be a decisive factor in the Syrian arena. Moreover, it will be counterproductive and will prolong the conflict. The most likely result of a ground invasion, however, would be a Golan Heights style stand off that could last years, if not decades. One thing everyone has to understand is that there can be no military solution to the war in Syria. The only thing that can work is peace talks and reconciliation. The new round of negotiations should be launched for the Syrian crisis aimed at creating a new status quo that both Russia and the US can support. From there, peace can grow. The two big world powers, the US and Russia, should also realise that Syria is the best place to start for them to seek avenues of cooperation. The author is a columnist for the Middle East and Af-Pak region and editor of a geo-political news agency Views Around. He can be reached at manishraiva@gmail.com