Could you elaborate? How do you see that panning out?
Two main reasons - firstly, to maintain power he is going to have to change the state so that he will never face any consequences for his mismanagement. Doing that will prevent anyone competent from coming into a position of power who would be able to fix the mess he has caused, never mind the future messes.
Secondly, a lot of the security of the state depends on its deterrent effect of the IDF with regards to its neighbours. October 7th damaged the credibility of the IDF, but arguments can be made that they were isolated and understaffed formations taken by surprise, they were weakened by political miscalculations, although Hamas achieved some successes they were beaten back after a few hours etc etc. However going into Gaza and failing to win, especially after visibly making it an existential conflict, will obviously make the IDF seem much less capable.
What diplomatic engagement they had with neighbours was damaged by their repeated bad behaviour over previous negotiations, and has been destroyed by the brutality of the war so far. The diplomatic engagement with states further afield has been more of the interference type, with support bought at the elite level (via lobbying, arms supplies and services) rather than earned by appealing to populations. That has given the appearance of success, but as we see with the laughable nature of their PR it has resulted in them being unable and unwilling to try and come up with a narrative that other people can get behind.
Netanyahu will end up with an army that is seen as a defeated one, with no regional support and little useful support from further afield, and with a population that is absolutely does not support him but is unable to get rid of him via normal means. That is a massively risky situation for a country of nine million people to be in.