I do believe it would be Winston Churchill
<span>Religious beliefs have
highly influenced the political and hierarchical structures in both Ottoman and
Safavid Persia empires. Although both states were of Islamic religion, they
belonged to different branches, Sunni and Shia. These branches differ over the
choice of Muhammad's successor, which subsequently acquired broader political
significance, as well as theological and juridical dimensions. Sunni Muslims
believed that Muhammad didn’t clearly appoint a successor, which is why there
isn’t hereditary succession law in Ottoman Empire. This contrasts with the Shia
Muslims view, which holds that Muhammad appointed his son-in-law and cousin Ali
ibn Abi Talib to succeed him. They believed that the empire should be led by
direct successor of Muhammad’s line. Differences between these two branches
affected the politics, as Shia Muslims weren’t religiously tolerant to other
confessions and considered them for heretics, even the other branches of Islam.
This resulted in the besieged of Bagdad, which was followed by the massacre of
a large part of its Sunni Muslim inhabitants, as it was endeavored to transform
Baghdad into a purely Shiite city. The besiege of Bagdad was the event that led
to the Ottoman-Safavid war (1623–1639).</span>
Defense probably but if rapidly expanding maybe offensive.
West Virginia is the answer that would be formed
