Yellow means it's complicated, so... It's complicated.
Positive relations are important to their national defense, and as a NATO member they're way more likely to let in US bases, and historically have because of fear of the USSR.
Recently, they've been interested in close relations with Russia since they're a nearby economic power, and the US hasn't been entirely thrilled with that.
They also want close relations with Ukraine, and so have been pushing for a peace with expediency as the goal, which would result in Ukraine losing land. The US is less interested in brokering peace at any cost, and so there's conflicting objectives.
The US supported Turkish operations in Syria, but has recently taken the stance that those operations pose the risk of destabilizing things further. Similarly for Iraqi operations.
Above all else, the US is committed to liking the positioning of that base in Turkey for the regional positioning it gives them, and Turkey is supremely appreciative of US assets making any attack on them hilariously unlikely.
Each party gets something out of the relationship, but it's far from a given that they'll be working towards the same goals outside of "the US should be positioned to protect Turkey".
Turkey has a complicated political history but to color with a very broad brush, they were transformed from an Islamic state and former empire to a secular western aligned democracy by Kemal Ataturk. The Turkish army was politically aligned with Ataturk and would intervene to prevent Turkey from backsliding into an Islamic state. The current government executed a slow-rolling coup replacing military commanders and instituted a largely Islamic autocracy which for historical reasons remains a member of NATO but which would probably not join the alliance if the decision were to be made again today. They’re not a powerful nation militarily or economically by European standards, but seek to play both sides of international conflicts to magnify their influence. They cannot walk away from NATO without risking an existential threat from the military and economic fallout, but will get away with what they can.
I'm not much of a Pokemon player, but I saw the chart in Arceus the other day and I was like "Jesus fuck. It used to just be Rock Paper Scissors. Now you need a freaking spreadsheet!"
It was never rock paper scissors. The three starters are an analogue of rock, paper, scissors. But the other types have much more complicated relationships even in the first release of pokemon in the 90s.
ISIS believes (incorrectly) you can force the Islamic State, much the way Christian Nationalists think you can purge the nonbelievers. And then the heretics. And then the sinners. And then the secret sinners. And then the insufficiently pious.
The path to a global ideological state is to feed the poor and the radicals. A few years of good living and no-one wants to fight anymore.