If the Republicans run on their record on the economy or the Iraq war they probably lose. So what do they do to try to win? They seek to make voters' feelings about America's security the issue and try to scare them into voting Republican. The assumption is that scared voters will go for the old war hero and his feral sidekick over the less warlike Democratic alternative.

So here we go. Three possible threats on the horizon, as we speak.

The first turned up in August when, probably based on encouragement from Vice President Dick Cheney, President Mikhail Saakashvili of Georgia threw his tiny army against the Russians in South Ossetia. The Georgians lost and Mr. Saakashvili was left holding the bag, but the Republicans gained as Americans found themselves viewing the chilling specter of a revived Cold War against the Russians. That would be serious business if it held, although the Russians probably won't let themselves get suckered into a U.S. domestic political ploy.

In any case, Americans shuddered, and the political gravity of the matter was enhanced by the thought of Sarah bravely leading Alaska National Guard forces in defense of their icy shores against the Russians. Scary threat No. 1.

Next came Pakistan -- a country in turmoil after the resignation of its president, Pervez Musharraf, at America's instigation, with the husband of its slain heroine, Benazir Bhutto, the principal candidate to replace Mr. Musharraf (which he did). In the face of that situation Mr. Bush authorized the 33,000 American troops based in Afghanistan to carry out aerial and ground-force attacks inside Pakistan, clear acts of war, without authorization, never mind a declaration of war, from Washington.

Pakistan's military and civilian authorities, quite predictably, reacted furiously to the undeclared warfare Mr. Bush authorized our forces to wage and which American troops began to carry out. Another serious threat of war. All it would take is for Pakistani forces -- an army of 604,000 -- to decide that they have had enough of Americans killing Pakistanis and then to resist U.S. forces militarily. Or even strike back in the United States. Threat of war No. 2. Nervous, yet? Want Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin in charge yet?

The No. 3 cranked-up war threat is as follows. There is a new report out of Jerusalem that Israel would like to attack Iran to destroy its nuclear facilities, a favorite scenario of some in the Bush administration. The report says that Israel asked the United States for bunker buster bombs and access across Iraqi air space to carry out this attack but that the United States has said no because it doesn't want Israel to go after Iran.

This report needs to be looked at closely, including with the thesis in mind that the Republican administration would like Israel to attack Iran, given the potential fall-out in the U.S. elections that the heightened security situation -- from Israel's attack, Iran's response and the overall impact in the Middle East -- would create. Americans would be rightly scared, and possibly more inclined to vote for the Republicans on that basis.

It could easily be that the Bush administration told the Israelis "no" on the bunker busters and air clearance so that it can say that it told the Israelis not to attack Iran. If any U.S. administration really wanted to keep the Israelis from attacking Iran, there would be two sure ways to achieve that outcome: Tell Israel that if it attacked Iran the $3 billion blank check in aid it receives each year from the United States would stop or warn Israel that the United States would provide no help whatsoever in dealing with Iran's retaliatory actions.

No bunker busters and no access to Iraqi air space might serve as a semi-credible smokescreen for those who don't really understand the situation. But they are not effective deterrents, and the Republicans might in this have their third voter-scaring potential war (or a real war) to attract votes on Nov. 4.

Now, the obvious response to this "three wars" hypothesis is to say that even the most cynical Republicans would not risk another war just to win an election and stay in power. But that might be to overlook how it was that Mr. Bush won a second term, with the Iraq war, which he started, having made him a war president. The people behind him, of course, make money out of America's wars because they raise the price of oil and the profits of defense contractors.

The three safety barriers to these three matches not starting a fire are the Russians, the Pakistanis and the Israelis.

The Russians have growled but stayed relatively cool in the face of U.S. provocation. The Pakistanis are limited in what they can do militarily and still are in some disarray because of their change in leadership. The Israelis are in domestic political turmoil, too, but also are probably far too smart to get pulled into a domestic American political game. Americans can only hope that the nerves of the Russians, Pakistanis and Israelis hold steady through November.

So maybe it's a coincidence that we have in rapid-fire order from this Republican administration the Georgia-based potential return to cold war with Russia, the U.S. attacks in Pakistan and a smokescreen for the United States that could precede an Israeli air attack on Iran, all in the space of about a month, two months out from the presidential election.

Or maybe it isn't a coincidence.