"We regard that (planning for air strikes) as psychological warfare stemming from America's anger and helplessness," foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said.
Two US publications reported over the weekend that the White House is studying options for military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities, with one even suggesting the use of an atomic weapon had been proposed.
Citing unnamed US officials and independent analysts, the Washington Post said no attack appears likely in the short term, but officials are preparing for it as a possible option and using the threat to convince Iranians of the seriousness of their intentions.
Pentagon and CIA planners have been exploring possible targets, such as Iran's underground uranium enrichment facility at Natanz and its uranium conversion plant at Isfahan, both located in central Iran, the report said.
In its April 17 edition, the New Yorker magazine said the US government is planning a massive bombing campaign against Iran, including the use of bunker-buster nuclear bombs to destroy suspected facilities like Natanz.
The administration of US President George W. Bush, which accuses Tehran of seeking to manufacture a nuclear bomb, has repeatedly said it is keeping all options open even though it supports efforts for a diplomatic solution.
"The Americans are not seeking a solution for the Iranian nuclear file and are seeking to make crisis. They do not want us to reach an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Europeans," Mr Asefi said.
The spokesman warned that Iran "will not give up its nuclear rights," adding that "activities of research on uranium enrichment are continuing normally" in Natanz.
Washington critics
Critics of the Bush administration in the US have also expressed alarm about the controversial reports of direct military action against Iran.
Retired General Anthony Zinni, the former head of US Central Command, told US television he had no detailed knowledge of the alleged military plans, but he suggested a pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear program would be extremely risky.
"Any military plan involving Iran is going to be very difficult. We should not fool ourselves to think it will just be a strike and then it will be over," said General Zinni.
"The Iranians will retaliate, and they have many possibilities in an area where there are many vulnerabilities, from our troop positions to the oil and gas in the region that can be interrupted, to attacks on Israel, to the conduct of terrorism," he said.
Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh said Mr Bush and others in the White House have come to view Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a potential Adolf Hitler.
Mr Hersh told CNN's Late Edition show a "messianic" president feels driven to try to contain Iran and the White House is determined to keep open a nuclear option against strong objections from some top Pentagon officials.
"He (Bush) thinks, as I wrote, that he's the only one now who will have the courage to do it," said Mr Hersh, who also broke the story about the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal.
Democratic Senator John Kerry, one of the administration's most outspoken critics, assailed the White House for what he said is its too-ready reliance on military might.
The Bush administration is insisting that its priority is to seek a diplomatic solution to the dispute over Iran's nuclear ambitions.
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw told BBC Television a US military strike was "not on the agenda" and any idea that Washington could use tactical nuclear weapons against Iran was "completely nuts".